JK 

119 
F8 


,yC-NRLF 


^B    5L5    Mst 


SEP  34  iSlS 


ENGLISH  OPINION  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
CONSTITUTION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

(1783-1798) 


BY 

LEON   FRASER 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  political  science 

COLUMBIA  university 


NEW  YORK 

I9I5 


ENGLISH  OPINION  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
CONSTITUTION  AND  GOVERNMENT 

(1783-1798) 


BY 

LEON  FRASER 

11 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

FACULTY  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK 
1915 


C4-- 


Copyright,  1915 

BY 
LEON  FRASER 


SUSAN   DAYTON  BONAR 


311454 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/englishopinionofOOfrasrich 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

BEFORE  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Introductory 9 

CHAPTER  I— At  the  Beginning 15 

CHAPTER  II— From  the  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace  to  the  Annapolis 

Convention 31 

CHAPTER  III- At  the  Dawn  of  Federal  Existence 45 

CHAPTER  IV-The  Reception  of  the  Constitution 55 

PART  II 

AFTER    THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Introductory 63 

CHAPTER  I— The  Views  of  the  Radicals 67 

CHAPTER  II— The  Opinion  of  the  Conservatives 85 

CHAPTER  III— The  Administration,  Fox,  and  Burke 99 

CHAPTER  IV— Criticism  of  Constitutional  Organization 107 


PART  I 

BEFORE  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


INTRODUCTORY. 

Gladstone's  panegyric  of  our  charter  of  government  is 
classic  and  fanciful:  "As  the  British  Constitution  is  the 
most  subtle  organism  which  has  proceeded  from  the  womb 
and  long  gestation  of  progressive  history ;  so  the  American 
Constitution  is,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  most  wonderful 
work  ever  struck  off  at  a  given  moment  by  the  brain  and 
purpose  of  man."^  If  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  Prime 
Minister  of  Queen  Victoria,  what  was  the  opinion  of  the 
Prime  Minister  of  George  III?  How  did  Burke,  political 
philosopher,  and  philosophical  politician,  regard  the  gov- 
ernment which  resulted  from  the  Revolution  he  had  so 
insistently  endorsed?  When  the  Colonies  wrested  inde- 
pendence from  the  Crown,  what  was  the  horoscope  for  the 
new  nation  cast  by  English  statesman,  thinker,  pamph- 
leteer, penny-a-liner?  What  did  they  think  of  the  experi- 
ment under  the  Articles  of  Confederation?  While  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention  was  sitting  in  Pliiladelphia,  what 
were  the  newspapers  saying  in  London?  When  the  fruit 
of  the  Convention's  deliberations  was  published  and  put 
into  practice,  what  was  the  general  judgment  on  the 
federal,  presidential,  republican  scheme,  then  somewhat 
of  a  new  thing  under  the  sun? 

It  is  the  purpose  of  these  pages  to  answer  these  ques- 
tions. They  present  an  anthology  of  opinion.  They  aim 
to  indicate  the  British  view  of  American  conditions  from 
the  signing  of  the  provisional  Treaty  of  Peace,^  when  the 
majority  of  Englishmen  were  certain  that  the   upstart 

i"Kin  Beyond  the  Sea,"  North  American  Review,  September,  1878 ;  re- 
printed in  Gleanings  of  Past  Years,  1879,  I.,  212. 
230  November,  1782. 


10  INTRODUCTORY 

Confederation  was  destined  to  be  short-lived,  until  about 
the  middle  of  the  administration  of  John  Adams  when  the 
majority  conceded  that  the  United  States  was  entitled  to 
an  increasingly  important  place  in  the  family  of  nations. 
We  shall  observe  the  divergent  views  of  radicals  and  con- 
servatives, Jacobins  and  monarchists.  We  shall  see  how 
concerned  were  the  friends  of  America  during  the  long 
war  over  the  events  in  the  disordered  interregnum  from 
the  recognition  of  independence  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution ;  and  how  the  remaining  English  gloated.  We 
shall  examine  the  proposals  for  a  better  government  which 
unoccupied  Britons  framed  for  American  consumption. 
We  shall  notice  the  reception  of  the  actually  adopted 
Constitution  among  those  who  had  lately  been  our  foes, 
with  particular  reference  to  the  criticism  of  its  theory  and 
operation  that  came  from  the  innumerable  pens  of  the 
political  critics  and  criticasters  who  crowd  this  period, 
and  from  the  lips  of  orators  in  Parliament  and  in  public 
who  brought  forward  America,  the  horrible  example,  or 
the  triumphant  success. 

Naturally  there  is  some  difficulty  in  asserting  that  the 
written  evidence  which  remains — contemporary  books, 
histories,  pamphlets,  newspapers,  magazines,  narratives  of 
travellers,  parliamentary  debates,  diplomatic  dispatches, 
letters,  biographies  and  memoirs  of  the  time — represents 
exactly  and  fully  the  entire  English  attitude  toward  the 
stripling  state.  Some  expressed  opinion  may  be  merely 
individual.  Some  widespread  opinions  may  not  have 
been  expressed  in  permanent  form.  But,  since  people 
have  their  thinking  done  for  them,  it  may  be  posited  that 
a  statement  found  in  half  a  dozen  varied  sources  represents 
in  a  general  way  the  prevailing  thought  of  the  day.  When 
we  find  in  the  Times,  and  in  a  political  pamphlet,  in  a  stray 
personal  letter,  in  an  autobiography,  and  in  a  traveller's 
tale  the  reiterated  assertion  that  with  the  retirement  of 
Washington  from  the  Presidency,  the  United  States  will 
disintegrate  at  the  first  election,  it  may  fairly  be  said  that 


INTRODVCTORT  11 

many  Englishmen  took  this  view.  People  readily  believe 
what  they  desire. 

In  the  bundle  of  excerpts  which  follow  we  shall  dis- 
tinguish what  appears  to  be  popular  opinion  from  the 
merely  individual  or  eccentric.  We  must  remember,  too, 
that  there  is  no  such  phenomenon  as  a  national  opinion 
which  is  a  unit.  Thought  within  nations  is  cut  by  strata. 
There  are  the  pros  and  cons,  liberals  and  conservatives, 
Foxites  and  Pittites.  In  this  study  we  shall  note  how 
persons  looking  at  the  same  facts  interpreted  them  to 
square  with  preconceived  notions  of  governmental  right 
and  wrong.  In  general  the  radicals  and  anti-administra- 
tion men  were  pro- American  through  thick  and  thin.  In 
general  the  Conservatives  belittled  the  success  of  the  new 
institutions,  and  the  administration  statesmen  looked 
grudgingly  at  the  contrast  between  republican  principles 
across  the  Atlantic  and  across  the  Channel.  Advocates  of 
parliamentary  reform  or  economic  betterment  shouted 
America  up.  Defenders  of  King,  Church,  and  State  cried 
her  down. 

But  a  drift  of  fundamental  opinion  is  ascertainable.  It 
is  easy  to  look  behind  the  benevolent  expressions  of  our 
sympathizers  in  1782-88  and  find  that  their  enthusiasm  is 
a  little  puffed  in  face  of  the  facts  of  the  situation.  Their 
hearts  were  not  so  strong  as  their  voices.  It  is  easy  to 
detect  in  the  acrid  remarks  of  our  opponents  in  1790-96 
some  additional  acerbity  because  the  experiment  is  lasting 
so  long.  While  the  well-wishers  become  more  sincerely 
confident,  the  adversaries  grumble.  Indeed,  as  in  America 
itself,  English  opinion  seems  slowly  to  have  evolved  from 
an  initial  certainty  that  the  union  was  bound  to  fail,  to 
an  ultimate  confidence  that  heavy  odds  were  in  favor  of 
its  endurance. 

Changing  opinion  caused  an  altered  attitude  in  political 
relations  between  the  two  countries.  It  is  not  complete 
to  assert,  as  Professor  McLaughlin  asserts,  that  "England 
refrained  from  entering  into  a  commercial  treaty  because 


12  INTRODUCTORY 

she  believed  the  enforcement  of  navigation  laws  would 
put  money  in  her  merchant's  pockets."^  There  were  other 
and  more  important  factors  coupled  directly  with  the  con- 
ceptions about  existing  American  government  held  by  her 
statesmen.  We  shall  find  a  marked  and  causal  transition 
in  the  English  notion  of  American  institutions  from  1784, 
when  our  representatives  were  dilly-dallying  for  months 
in  the  vain  hope  of  consummating  a  commercial  treaty, 
and  the  ideas  of  ten  years  later  when  Jay  was  able  to  arrive 
at  an  agreement.  There  is  a  distinct  reason  for  the  un- 
similar  receptions  accorded  Rufus  King,  who  was  wel- 
comed Minister  to  the  Court  of  St.  James's  in  1796,  and 
John  Adams  who  presented  his  credentials  in  1785.  Of 
Adams's  arrival  an  English  newspaper  spoke  thus: 

"An  ambassador  from  America — Good  Heavens,  what 
a  sound!  The  Gazette  surely  never  announced  anything 
so  extraordinary  before,  nor  on  a  day  so  little  expected. 
.  .  .  'Tis  hard  to  say  which  can  excite  indignation  most, 
the  insolence  of  those  who  appoint  the  character,  or  the 
manners  of  those  who  receive  it."^ 

Further,  within  the  boundaries  of  the  countries  them- 
selves, there  was  a  reciprocal  influence  of  opinion  and  of 
institutions.  England's  contempt  for  our  situation  under 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  her  refusal  to  send  an  Am- 
bassador and  to  conclude  a  supplemental  treaty  was  one 
element  in  the  manifold  influences  which  wrought  the 
political  reformation  of  1787.  The  principles  of  repub- 
licanism, religious  freedom,  separation  of  church  and  state, 
and  popular  representation,  practised  across  the  water 
without  any  volcanic  disruption  of  society,  were  shibbo- 
leths for  Scottish  Burgh  reformer,  Irish  patriot,  British 
radical,  and  thorns  in  the  flesh  of  all  good  expounders  of 
constitutional  moQjirchy. 

Before  assembling  the  English  comments  on  the  experi- 
ment in  the  great  political  laboratory  we  must  sound  a 

lA.  C.  McLaughlin,  The  Confederation  and  the  Constitution  (1905), 
105.  2Pm&.  Advertiser,  6  June,  1785. 


mTRODVCTORY  |3 

word  of  warning.  We  must  not  expect  too  much.  If  we 
will  ask  ourselves  first  what  naturally  would  be  the  criti- 
cism of  a  nation's  people,  somewhat  embittered  over  the  loss 
of  a  colony,  when  they  speak  of  that  colony's  initial  at- 
tempts at  self-government  and  observe  with  comprelien- 
sible  delight  its  feeble  beginnings  at  walking  alone,  we 
shall  find  that  the  thoughts  that  come  to  our  mind  about 
the  probable  inferences  and  desires  are  curiously  like  those 
which  were  actually  voiced.  So  our  study  will  reveal  noth- 
ing extraordinary,  though  it  may  make  us  dubious  about 
the  wisdom  of  political  prophesy  when  we  compare  things 
as  they  are  with  things  as  early  British  critics  said  they 
were  bound  to  be. 

We  must  remember,  also,  that  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution looms  as  an  occurrence  of  the  first  magnitude 
to  us  largely  by  virtue  of  its  long  endurance.  In  the  winter 
of  1787-88  there  was  no  tradition  of  veneration,  as  vitriolic 
pamphleteers  who  battled  in  the  different  states  against 
the  ratification  of  the  document  make  evident.  To  the 
contemporaries  it  was  simply  a  new  plan,  substituted  for 
a  failure,  that  was  published  in  the  British  press  in  No- 
vember, 1787.  They  had  been  rather  more  interested  in 
the  failure  than  in  the  suggested  modes  of  reform.  Indeed, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  America  had  lately  been  a 
colony,  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  public  would  have  turned 
aside  from  the  absorbing  trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  then 
coming  on,  to  criticise  the  new  venture.  It  would  have 
mattered  about  as  much  to  England  as  a  reformed  charter 
in  Thibet.  Yet  we  shall  find  a  respectable  amount  of  atten- 
tion from  all,  ranks  of  society  directed  toward  the  American 
political  adventure  from  the  Treaty  of  Peace  to  the  adop- 
tion of  the  federal  constitution,  at  its  ratification,  and  at 
its  trial  during  the  administrations  o  Washington  and 
Adams  when  it  came  to  be  discovered  that  the  scheme  of 
the  federal  convention  was  not  a  paper  charter  but  a 
practical  political  organ. 


CHAPTER  I. 
At  the  Beginning. 

When  King  George  announced  to  his  loyal  Parliament 
the  conclusion  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  with  the  American 
Plentipotentiaries,  he  was  made  to  utter  a  supplication 
that  veiled  a  precept.  "I  make  it,"  he  said,  "my  humble 
and  earnest  prayer  to  Almighty  God  .  .  .  that  America 
may  be  free  from  those  calamities  which  have  formerly 
proved  in  the  mother  country  how  essential  monarchy  is 
to  the  enjoyment  of  constitutional  liberty."^  It  may  be 
doubted  that  His  Majesty  repeated  this  prayer  in  private. 
We  know  his  resentment  over  the  disappearance  from  the 
crown  of  the  colonial  jewels.  That  some  of  his  subjects 
were  rather  hoping  calamities  would  not  be  avoided,  we 
can  see  from  the  following  prophesies  about  America's 
future  made  at  the  beginning. 

During  the  war  it  had  been  often  predicted  that  if  the 
country  became  free,  the  States  would  speedily  disinteg- 
rate.^ It  had  been  pointed  out  that  in  the  republican  con- 
stitutions of  the  individual  commonwealths  lay  the  seeds 
of  discord^  and  that  "the  new  states,  being  altogether 
popular  and  bearing  a  greater  resemblance  to  the  demo- 
cratical  cantons  of  Switzerland  than  to  the  laws  and  ways 
of  Great  Britain"*  were  likely  to  become  an  appendage  of 
some    European    power    other    than    England — probably 

iHamard,  XXIII,  207. 
2Josiah  Tucker,  Cui  Bono,  1781,  116. 

3Jos.  Galloway,  Cool  Thoughts  on  the  Consequences  to  Great  Britain 
of  American  Independence,  1780,  47. 
^Galloway,  Ibid,  47. 

15 


16  AT    THE    BEOINNINa 

France.  At  the  eve  of  the  close  of  the  war  Josiah  Tucker 
burst  into  this  tirade: 

"As  to  the  future  grandeur  of  America  and  its  being  a 
rising  Empire,  under  one  head,  whether  republican,  or 
monarchical,  it  is  one  of  the  idlest,  and  most  visionary 
notions,  that  ever  was  conceived  even  by  writers  of  ro- 
mance. For  there  is  nothing  in  the  genius  of  the  people, 
the  situation  of  their  country,  or  the  nature  of  their  dif- 
ferent climates,  which  tends  to  countenance  such  a  sup- 
position. On  the  contrary  every  prognostic  that  can  be 
formed  from  a  contemplation  of  their  mutual  antipathies, 
and  clashing  interests,  their  difference  of  governments, 
habitudes  and  manners — plainly  indicates  that  the  Ameri- 
cans will  have  no  center  of  union  among  them,  and  no 
common  interest  to  pursue  when  the  power  and  govern- 
ment of  England  are  finally  removed.  Moreover,  when 
the  intersection  and  disunion  of  their  country  by  great 
Bays  of  the  sea,  and  by  vast  rivers,  lakes  and  ridges  of 
mountains; — and  above  all,  when  those  immense  internal 
regions  beyond  the  back  settlements,  which  are  still  un- 
explored, are  taken  into  account,  they  form  the  highest 
probability  that  the  Americans  never  can  be  united  into 
one  compact  Empire,  under  any  species  of  government 
whatever.  Their  fate  seems  to  be— a  DISUNITED  PEO- 
PLE till  the  End  of  Time."^ 

Tucker  thereupon  staged  an  imaginary  "Fourth  of  July 
orator"  who  declaimed  about  the  tyranny  of  the  republican 
leaders  in  comparison  witli  which  the  restrictions  under 
England's  rule  were  "mere  dwarfs  and  pigmies."  "We 
have  been  cheated,  baffled  and  betrayed,"  he  cries.  "Great 
numbers  have  left  us  to  return  to  Europe."  As  a  means 
of  averting  this  dismal  future  Tucker  urged  that  the  Col- 
onies should  maintain  some  nexus  with  England,  and  com- 
pose their  internal  differences  by  partisan  segregation 
after  this  fashion :  The  territory  to  be  divided  in  quarters ; 
all  from  the  Penobscot  to  the  Connecticut,  and  from  the 

Wui  Bonof    1781,  117-19. 


AT    THE    BEGINNING  17 

Hudson  to  North  Carolina  to  be  allotted  to  the  Repub- 
licans. From  the  Connecticut  to  the  Hudson  and  from 
North  Carolina  southward  the  land  was  to  be  given  to  the 
Loyalists.^ 

John  Andrews,  who  later  put  together  a  four-volume 
history  of  Britain's  multiple  wars  from  1775-83,  in  An 
Essay  on  Republican  Principles,^  started  his  critique  of  the 
one  time  colonies  more  conservatively  by  suggesting  that 
"the  wisest  politicians  can  by  no  means  form  the  least  con- 
jecture in  relation  to  the  future  contingencies  that  may 
befall  them.  The  Constitution  is  at  present  republican, 
but  whether  it  will  continue  so  in  all  of  them  is  a  point 
which  will  admit  of  much  dispute.^  .  .  .  Time  only  can  dis- 
cover." He  at  once  assumes  wisdom,  however,  and  pre- 
dicts that  America  has  lost  its  "tranquility  and  happiness 
forever,"  that  its  distance  will  shield  it  from  European 
wars^  that  if  freedom  of  the  press  is  permitted,  it  will  be 
under  a  variety  of  limitations.*  But  the  great  principle 
upon  which  America  will  shipwreck  is  that  republics  must 
be  geographically  small.  "What  may  suit  a  people  shut 
in  narrow  boundaries  may  not  be  equally  fitted  to  a  popu- 
lous nation  inhabiting  a  large  country.  ...  It  is  solely  on 
this  principle  that  we  should  strenuously  resist  all  those 
who  betray  a  predilection  for  that  form  of  government  in 
so  extensive  a  tract  of  ground  as  the  Island  of  Great 
Britain."^ 

This  accepted  bogie  of  eighteenth  century  political 
theory  we  shall  meet  again  and  again. ^  It  is  reiterated  at 
every  turn  by  writers  with  a  smattering  of  political  science. 
Andrews  puts  the  doctrine  so  succinctly  that  it  is  worth 
presenting.  The  grand  conclusion  of  his  book  and  "the 
first  maxim  established  is  that  a  republican  government 
is  the  fittest  for  a  people  not  numerous,  and  enclosed 
within  a  narrow  space  of  land,  whose  wealth  is  too  moder- 
ate to  create  and  support  luxury,  and  who,  at  the  same 

ilbid.  ilUd,  79. 

21783.  Hhid,  17. 

iEssay,  16.  sSee  Federalist,  Papers  X  &  XIV. 


18  AT   TEE   BEGINNING 

time,  have  no  views  of  extending  themselves,  and  have  no 
reason  to  apprehend  invasions."^ 

A  traveller  who  toured  America  at  the  end  of  the  con- 
flict came  to  conclusions  opposite  from  Andrews  on  the 
liability  of  invasion.  J.  F.  D.  Smythe,  Loyalist  and  former 
prisoner  of  war,  said  that  he  found  the  country  very  weak 
"and  a  prey  to  future  wars.  .  .  .  Slie  has  acquired  but 
a  shadow.  .  .  .  Her  versatile  government  will  change  so 
often  that  no  description  can  be  exact"  and  ultimately  she 
will  fall  under  French  control.^  Similarly  William  Mac- 
intosh, a  man  of  mystery  whom  we  shall  come  upon  once 
more  when  he  formulates  a  complete  Constitution  for  the 
United  States,  wrote  in  his  Travels  in  Europe,  Asia  and 
Africa,^  "their  democratical  government  will  not  in  all 
probability  be  of  long  continuance.  People  ....  will  not 
long  endure  the  insolence,  abuse  and  depredations  of  up- 
starts at  the  head  of  armies  and  in  the  departments  of 
power.  ...  I  am  convinced  that  North  America  will  not 
long  maintain  its  independence  on  Great  Britain  without 
falling  more  dependant  on  some  other  power  or  powers  of 
Europe."^  Macintosh  thought  the  "vast,  unprotected 
coasts,"  "internal  jealousies,"  "taxes"  and  "attitude  of 
France"  guaranteed  this  conclusion. 

One  of  the  most  dyspeptic  of  our  critics  at  the  beginning 
was  stern  old  William  Knox  who  had  been  in  the  Colonies 
and  had  served  as  under  Secretary  of  State  for  America, 
who  had  witnessed  the  "growing  disposition  to  independ- 
ence,"^ slipped  away  to  England  before  the  storm,  and 
prayed  for  an  adjustment  which  never  came.  For  the  delec- 
tation of  good  Tories  like  himself  he  prophesied  as  follows : 

''Whoever  thinks  America  will  be  a  great  Empire,  let  him 
look  upon  the  map  of  North  America,  and  calculate  in 
what  number  of  ages  that  vast  continent  will  be  over- 

WsHay,  80. 

24  Tour  in  the  United  States  of  America,  1784,  II.,  413,  aeg. 

81781. 

^Travels,  I.,  276. 

^Extra  Official  State  Papers,  1789,,  I,  44. 


AT    THE    BEGINNING  19 

spread  .  .  .  and  the  inhabitants  then  forced  to  submit  to 
government.  .  .  .  The  present  state  of  the  North  of 
Asia  may  help  us  to  form  a  judgment  of  what  will  be  the 
state  of  North  and  indeed  of  South  America,  too.  In 
Asia  they  carry  on  no  foreign  trade,  and  but  little  inter- 
course with  the  rest  of  the  world,  being  equally  unknow- 
ing and  unknown — and  such  will  the  Trans-AUeghaney 
Mountain  people  be  4,000  years  hence,  if  the  world  lasts  so 
long.  The  inhabitants  of  the  sea  coast,  who  have  much 
property  in  houses  and  other  buildings  and  cultivated 
lands,  must  remain  upon  the  spots  they  are  fixed  to,  and 
must  submit  to  some  sort  of  government  or  other,  but  what- 
ever it  may  be,  it  must  be  feeble  and  without  respect.  .  .  . 

"I  will  go  further  and  assure  those  States  that  if  they  do 
not  recover  their  characters  for  integrity  in  their  dealings 
and  thereby  restore  their  credit  with  the  British  merchants, 
and  form  such  a  connection  with  this  country  as  shall 
secure  for  them  its  protection  and  umperage,  they  will  de- 
generate into  barbarous,  if  not  into  Barbary  states."^ 

If  those  who  bore  our  separation  bitterly  saw  things  a 
little  black,  the  anti-administration  men  who  had  lauded 
Burke  and  Fox  during  the  weary  struggle,  saw  color  of 
rose.  While  King  George  himself  was  writing  to  Fox  "that 
revolted  state  .  .  .  certainly  for  years  cannot  establish  a 
stable  government,"^  John  Jebb  became  lyrical: 

"O  America!  liberated,  triumphant,  independent,  home 
of  heroes,  asylum  sent  to  suffering  humanity !  Grateful 
it  is  to  me  to  reflect,  that  in  every  stage  of  that  calamitous 
contest,  my  heart  has  felt,  my  tongue  has  confessed,  the 
justice  of  thy  cause.  America!  where  .  .  .  the  human 
species  will  at  last  obtain  an  asylum ;  and  every  individual 
be  permitted  to  enjoy  a  larger  portion  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty  than  hath  been  indulged  in  any  age  or  clime."' 

There  were  other  panegyrists  who  reached  Jebb's  alti- 

HUd,  50-52. 

^Memorials  and  Correspondence  of  Charles  James  Fox,  1853,  II.,  140. 

^The  Works  of  John  Jebb,  1787,  III.,  321. 


20  AT    THE    BEO INNING 

tude.  "A  Somersetshire  Man,"  who  contributed  a  series  of 
letters  to  the  Whitehall  Evening  Post  on  parliamentary 
representation,  rhapsodized  on  "the  rising  state  next  in 
rotation  to  be  the  seat  of  science,  of  the  arts  and  arms  .  .  . 
the  most  powerful  state  in  the  world."^  Thomas  Day  con- 
gratulated humanity  on  this  sample  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty.^  The  translator  of  Abbe  Mably's  '^ Observations 
sur  le  Gouvernment  et  les  Loix  des  Etats  JJnis  d'Ameri- 
que"^  had  to  revert  to  the  classics  to  express  his  admira- 
tion: 

"0  fortunatos  nimium,  sua  si  bona  norint" 

In  bis  preface  he  states  that  the  Americans  have  the  best 
government  on  record  and  that  they  will  be  a  great  nation 
if  only  they  keep  from  aristocracy,  monarchy  and  luxury, 
the  avoidance  of  which  last  curse,  like  the  imperative 
smallness  of  republics,  being  one  of  the  inflexible  precepts 
for  national  welfare  in  the  eighteenth  century  political 
theory,  which  we  shall  run  across  once  more. 

Horace  Walpole  was  delighted  too.  While  the  conflict 
was  at  its  height  he  wrote  the  Earl  of  Strafford ;  "I  can- 
not talk,  I  cannot  think  on  any  other  subject."*  In  re- 
porting the  peace  to  the  Countess  of  Upper  Ossory  he 
remarks,  "America,  secure  of  her  liberty,  has  an  oppor- 
tunity that  never  occurred  in  the  world  before  of  being 
able  to  select  the  best  parts  of  every  known  Constitution,"^ 
and  he  expresses  the  hope  that  the  check  and  balance 
system  of  England  will  be  adopted. 

Walpole  might  have  criticised  the  existing  system,  if  he 
had  willed.  The  English  writers  had  the  constitutions  of 
the  individual  states  before  them  and  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation.   It  was  a  matter  of  congratulation  that  all  the 

19  May,  1783. 

^Reflections  on  the  Present  State  of  England  and  tJie  Independence 
of  America,  1783,  106. 
81784. 

427  Nov.,  1781,  Letters   (1903-05),  XII,  105. 
622  Jan.,  1783,  Ibid,  XIII,  390. 


AT    THE   BEO INNING  21 

Constitutions  were  comprised  in  a  single  volume.^  In  a 
foreword  to  a  collection  of  these  documents  the  Reverend 
William  Jackson  complimented  the  Legislatures  on  adopt- 
ing the  excellencies  of  the  British  Constitution  and  said: 
"the  Americans  framed  constitutions  of  government  for 
themselves.  .  .  .  Not  a  doubt  can  exist  of  their  attaining 
the  summit  of  political  happiness."  Criticizing  an  edi- 
tion of  the  same  book  which  came  out  a  year  earlier,  a 
writer  in  the  Monthly  Review  concludes  thus :  "This  publi- 
cation contains,  take  it  all  together,  a  greater  portion  of 
unsophisticated  wisdom  and  good  sense,  than  is  perhaps  to 
be  met  with  in  any  other  legislative  code  that  was  ever  yet 
framed."^ 

The  editor  of  the  edition  reviewed,  J.  L,  DeLolme,  after 
praising  the  system  of  representation  and  the  bicameral 
legislature,  which  he  says  is  modeled  after  England's,  ac- 
curately defines  the  Articles  of  Confederation  as  "a  treaty 
...  by  which  the  United  States  are  intended  to  be  con- 
solidated into  one  common  republic."  In  fact  there  was 
little  misconception  in  England  as  to  the  powers  conferred 
by  these  Articles^  and  ample  information,  as  we  shall 
observe,  about  their  shortcomings  in  operation.  John 
Almon's  Remembrancer^  which  gave  such  complete  infor- 
mation on  American  affairs,  lamented  "that  so  much  pains 
have  been  taken  to  form  and  organize  the  Constitution  of 
the  several  individual  governments,  and  so  little  has  been 
taken  in  that  which  respects  the  whole  nation  of  America."* 
The  writer  held  that  insufficient  powers  were  granted 
Congress  for  efifectual  administration. 

Parliament  and  publicists  were  clear  on  the  constrained 
prerogatives  of  the  confederate  legislature.     Speaking  to 

iThe  Articles  were  published  by  Stockdale,  1783  and  1783,  by  Walker, 
1782,  Dublin  edition,  1783,  in  the  Anrmal  Register  for  1776,  in  W^illiam 
Gordon's  History  of  the  United  States  of  America,  1788,  III,  24-35,  in 
the  English  translation  of  LaCroix's  Review  of  the  Constitutions  of 
Europe  and  the  United  States  of  America,  1792,  I,  460-475. 

2Jfom.  Chronicle,  3  September,  1784 ;  3  February,  1783. 

^The  Whitehall  Ev.  Post,  19  August,  1783,  summarized  them:  Con- 
gress can  resolve  anything,  but  execute  nothing. 

42  July,  1782. 


22  AT   THE   BEGINNINO 

the  Lord's  Address  to  His  Majesty  in  answer  to  the  speech 
which  had  announced  the  preliminary  peace  pact,  Lords 
Walsingham,^  Hawke,^  and  Sackville^  reminded  the  upper 
House  that  in  the  United  States  a  treaty  was  not  supreme 
law/  and  that  Congress  had  only  power  to  recommend.^ 
They  likened  that  body  to  the  King  at  home,  calling  it  "the 
executive  arm  of  America."^  When  opposition  ran  high  to 
pinning  the  claim  of  the  Loyalists  on  the  uncertain  clause 
of  the  Treaty,  "Congress  shall  earnestly  recommend  it  to 
the  legislatures  of  the  respective  States,"*  Shelburne  in- 
genuously said,  "  'recommend'  was  all  in  the  nature  of 
things  we  could  procure.  Peremptory  language  is  not  the 
language  of  a  new  state."^ 

Lord  Sheffield  in  his  famous  pamphlet,  "Observations  on 
the  Commerce  of  the  American  States,"®  after  proving  to 
his  own  satisfaction  the  worthlessness  of  American  trade, 
after  remarking  that  West  of  the  Alleghanies"  the  author- 
ity of  Congress  can  never  be  maintained,"^  made  a  more 
irritating  and  exact  statement  to  the  effect  that  "no  treaty 
can  be  made  with  the  American  states  that  can  be  binding 
on  the  whole  of  them.  The  Act  of  Confederation  does  not 
entitle  Congress  to  form  more  than  general  treaties  .  .  . 
when  treaties  are  necessary ^  they  must  be  made  with  the 
States  separately:  Each  State  has  reserved  every  power 
relative  to  imports,  exports,  duties,  etc.,  to  itself.  But  no 
treaty  at  present  is  necessary."^ 

This  view  of  Congressional  impotence  was  so  widespread 
in  Great  Britain  that  it  was  actually  doubted  by  some 
whether  Congress  had  enough  authority  to  ratify  the  Treaty 
of  Peace.®  Sackville  presumed  that  "all  the  powers  in 
Europe  would  be  kept  waiting  for  the  individual  States  to 
act"  on  it  "since  Congress  was  inadequate."^"    This  doubt 

^Hansard,  XXIII,  386.  4Art.  V,  Treaty  of  Paris. 

2IbU,  383.  5Hansard,  XXII,  412. 

3IMd,  404.  61783. 

TOhservaHons,  102. 
ilUd,  110 ;  italics,  Sheffield's. 
^Whitehall  Ev.  Post,  21  AugTist,  1783. 
los.  to  Knox,  Hist.  Mss.  Com.;  12th  Rep.,  VI,  192. 


AT    THE   BEGINNING  23 

played  a  very  material  role  in  the  long  refusal  of  the 
Ministry  to  consider  a  commercial  arrangement  or  to  send 
out  a  ministerj  and  consuls.^  One  paper  computed'  that 
"if  every  State  in  America  sends  an  envoy  resident  to  the 
Courts  of  Europe,  they  will  amount  to  150  persons."^ 
George  Chalmers  in  a  monograph  on  international  legal 
points  arising  out  of  the  Kevolution  wrote:  "It  is  surely 
a  question  of  no  small  moment  whether  there  at  present 
exists  within  the  United  States  any  power  which  can  law- 
fully conclude  a  commercial  treaty."^  He  pointed  out  that 
while  "some  of  the  States  imposed  duties,  New  Jersey  and 
Connecticut  opened  free  ports,"*  and  he  likened  the  "in- 
curable, irresolute  Congress  to  the  boy,  humorously  rep- 
resented by  Reynolds  in  the  dress  and  figure  of  Henry 
VIII,  and  who  impressed  the  mind  with  the  idea  of  a  per- 
sonage of  great  bulk  with  little  force."^ 

The  troubles  of  Congress  formed  a  favorite  butt  of  ridi- 
cule throughout  the  hazardous  period  till  the  Constitution 
was  framed.  A  "vox  et  praeterita  nihil/'  "a  moonshine 
government,"  said  the  columnist  who  weekly  contributed 
"An  Abridgement  of  the  State  of  Politics  for  the  Week" 
to  the  Whitehall  Evening  Post.^  "They  retire  from  the 
eye  of  a  traveller,"  wrote  an  anonymous  critic  whose  "Ob- 
servations" were  enclosed  by  Sir  Guy  Carleton  in  a  letter 
he  sent  to  Lord  North. '^  "A  little  time  and  the  authority 
of  Congress  will  sink  to  that  of  the  Council  of  the  Amph- 
ictyons;  the  State  will  draw  as  little  together  as  the 
States  of  Holland;  separate  views  and  separate  interests 
must  forever  divide  them,"  was  another  comment.^ 

As  a  result  of  this  condition  British  opinion  at  the  dawn 
of  our  existence  saw  but  two  possibilities — an  immediate 
and  fundamental  revision  of  the  Articles,  or  disruption.' 

iFranklin,  Works,  VIII,  345;  Dip.  Corresp.,  1783-89,  II,  297. 
2Pw6.  Advertiser,  29  August,  1783. 

^Opinions  on  Interesting  Subjects  of  PuMic  Law  cmd  Commercial 
Policy,  1784,  160.        ilMd,  162.        HUd,  164.       65  and  16  Augnist,  1783. 
713  October,  1783,  Colonial  Office  Papers,  Canada,  Class  V,  Vol.  CXI. 
iPuh.  Advertiser,  23  May,  1783. 
^Corresp.  and  Pub.  Papers  of  John  Jay,  1891,  III,  66,  95. 


24  AT    THE    BEGINNING 

If  disruption  took  place,  there  were  four  theories  of  the 
outcome:  The  United  States  would  become  a  monarchy, 
probably  with  Washington  as  king;  it  would  come  back  to 
England;  it  would  become  an  appendage  of  France;  it 
would  split  into  two  or  three  separate  republics.  With 
the  retirement  of  Congress  to  Princeton  before  the  onset 
of  the  disgruntled  unpaid  Lancaster  soldiers  our  evil 
wishers  over  the  water  thought  the  deathknell  had  rung, 
as  they  did  once  more  when  Shay  rebelled  in  Massachu- 
setts. 

"Their  High  Mightinesses,  the  United  States,  or  their 
representatives,  the  Congress,  driven  from  the  metropolis, 
the  seat  of  the  newborn  Empire,  to  Princetown  ( cautiously 
named  Princeton) — by  whom?  By  their  own  soldiers  lead 
on  by  no  higher  power  than  Sergeants!  Very  ominous! 
It  looks  as  if  the  next  convocation  of  Congress  would  be 
at  King  Town  under  the  shadow  of  royalty."'^ 

"At  Princetown  they  certainly  will  not  remain.  .  .  .  By 
the  time  the  weather  grows  warm,  they  will  sit  nowhere/^ 
was  the  report  of  a  secret  agent  on  American  soil  whose 
dispatch  was  forwarded  to  the  Foreign  Oflfice  by  Sir  Guy 
Carleton.^  Laurens^  in  London,  wrote  to  our  Minister  at 
Paris  that  the  enemies  of  the  United  States  had  exulted 
and  the  friends  had  too  much,  "abandoned  themselves  to 
dread  that  the  soldiery  had  assumed  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment and  that  all  the  states  of  America  were  rushing  into 
anarchy."^ 

"The  consequence  which  the  people  of  this  country  draw 
from  these  disorders  is  that  the  present  government  of 
America  cannot  continue  under  its  present  form,  but  that 
either  a  monarchy  or  the  separation  of  each  state  from 
another  will  take  place,"  said  Richard  Champion,  a  critic 
kindly  disposed  toward  America,  in  his  answer  to  Shef- 
field's emphatic  pamphlet."*  "It  is  by  no  means  a  certainty." 

^WMtehall  Ev.  Post,  2  Aug^ust,  1783. 
213  October,  1783,  C.  O.  Papers,  Can.,  Class  5,  Vol.  CXI. 
39  August,  1787,  Dip.  Corresp.  of  the  Rev.  (Wharton),  VI,  697. 
*Conni(leration8  on  the  .  .  .  Situation  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  1784,  136, 


AT    THE    BEGINNING  25 

he  continued,  "that  Congress  will  ever  recover  a  permanent 
authority  over  all  the  States.  The  necessity  of  a  sovereign 
power  may  produce  a  temporary  one  to  compose  the  pres- 
ent differences.  .  .  .  There  will  be  three  great  republics, 
according  to  the  dissimilitude  of  their  manners,  customs, 
and  commerce.  The  New  England  States  will  make  one. 
Nature  ha3  united  them  in  the  strongest  manner.  New 
York,  the  Jerseys,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland  and  Virginia 
will  form  another,  the  richest  and  most  powerful.  .  .  . 
The  third  government  in  America  will  be  the  Carolinas  and 
Georgia."^  So  confident  was  Champion  of  this  outcome 
that  he  recommended  the  immediate  appointment  of  three 
consuls  that  they  might  be  in  the  different  sections  when 
the  rift  came. 

Rumors  of  anarchy  and  recourse  to  the  protection  of 
Great  Britain  or  France  we^^e  rife  on  every  hand.^  It  was 
reported  that  Washington  was  so  disgusted  with  affairs 
that  he  had  left  for  Europe.'  Sadness  overcame  Franklin 
as  he  contemplated  the  coming  ruin  of  his  country.*  Carle- 
ton,  addressing  Lord  North  from  New  York,  seemed  to 
corroborate  the  London  paragraphs  by  stating  that  "an- 
other revolution  is  inevitable  and  at  no  great  distance." 
He  said  there  were  four  factions  in  the  States,  the  "fierce 
Republicans,"  those  who  looked  back  to  Great  Britain, 
many  who  "turn  their  eyes  to  General  Washington  and 
consider  him  the  only  character  able  to  preserve  them  from 
anarchy  and  destruction"  and  "there  are  in  the  different 
states  persons  who  boldly  assert  that  a  king  is  indispens- 
ably necessary  for  the  tranquility  of  the  country."^ 

Another  factor  besides  Congressional  weakness  which 
made  Englishmen  prone  to  believe  an  eruption  at  hand 

t-Ibid,  142.  Same  view  expressed  by  E.  Bancroft,  8  November,  1783, 
C.  O.  Papers,  Can.,  Class  5,  Vol.  CXI. 

2Whitehall  Ev.  Post,  2  January,  31  July,  9  and  18  AugTist,  1783; 
Mom  Post,  25  July  and  11  December,  1783 ;  Polit.  Mag.,  May  and  August. 

3Mor».  Post,  28  August  and  1  September,  1783. 

*Morn.  Post,  11  December. 

613  October,  1783,  C.  O.  Papers,  litd. 


26  AT    TEE   BEGINNING 

was  the  libidinous  republicanism  supposed  to  be  rampant 
in  the  late  revolted  colonies.  Our  friends  like  Jebb  called 
it  "divine  liberty."  The  King's  followers  who  had  seen 
this  divine  liberty  take  the  form  of  armed  resistence  called 
the  goddess  a  less  soft  name.  After  independence  was  won 
satirists  parodied  the  progress  of  American  Republican- 
ism in  squibs  like  this : 

"The  relaxation  of  government  is  so  great  at  present  and 
the  levelling  principle  among  the  lower  classes  so  predom- 
inant that  there  are  in  fact  hardly  any  servants  to  be 
found.  People  are  highly  dissatisfied  with  their  present 
rulers,  the  majority  of  them  being  well  known  to  be  beg- 
gars."^ 

"They  are  all  Kings,  all  rulers,  all  Judges  of  the  Court : 
A  perfect  level  and  equality  of  character  prevails  through- 
out so  that  every  lady  may  cook  her  own  meat  and  every 
gentleman  black  his  own  shoes."^  In  despair  people  were 
leaving  the  country;  the  population  had  decreased  im- 
mensely since  British  rule  had  ended.  This  last  belief  was 
prevalent.^ 

A  way  out  of  chaos  in  English  eyes,  if  we  may  judge  by 
the  newspaper  columns,  was  a  recasting  of  the  Articles 
with  the  provision  of  a  central  government  of  real  sub- 
stance. They  seemed  at  first  to  have  considered  it  a  matter 
of  course  that  this  would  be  done.  "Immediately  after 
the  receipt  of  official  information  regarding  the  recog- 
nition of  the  independence  of  America  by  Parliament, 
Congress  will  seriously  apply  themselves  to  the  arduous 
business  of  forming  a  code  of  laws  for  the  government  of 
the  several  provinces,"  stated  the  Whitehall  Evening  Post, 
Jan.  4th,  1783.^  On  July  31st  it  printed  an  account  an- 
nouncing that  the  United  States  "by  their  Deputies  in 
Congress,  have  agreed  to  and  finally  settled  upon  a  second 
Treaty  of  Union,  offensive  and  defensive,  very  similar  to 

iMom.  Post,  30  June,  25  July,  6  and  18  October,  1783. 
2Morn.   Post.,   10   September,   1783;   Lon.  Chronicle,   20   May,    1784; 
Smythe,  Travels,  II,  413. 

SDitto,  Pub.  Advertiser,  20  February  and  21  August,  1783. 


AT    THE   BEGINNING  27 

their  last."  The  statement  was  denied  in  the  Public  Ad- 
vertiser of  September  17th.  "Not  the  least  alteration  has 
been  made,"  it  was  asserted. 

Two  English  admirers  then  came  forward  with  proposed 
remedies  for  the  situation.  They  were  Thomas  Pownall, 
successively  colonial  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  New  Jer- 
sey, and  South  Carolina,  who  had  been  a  spectator  of  the 
Congress  of  Albany,^  and  knew  the  diflflculties  in  the  way 
of  closer  union,  and  the  non-conforming  Richard  Price, 
whom  we  shall  meet  again  when  he  delivers  a  discourse 
on  the  love  of  country  which  sets  Edmund  Burke  compos- 
ing some  frantic  reflection  on  the  French  Revolution. 
Price's  heart  was  in  the  American  cause.  Until  his  death 
he  termed  the  American  conflict  "glorious."^  He  was  a  fre- 
termed  the  American  conflict  "glorious.""  He  was  a  fre- 
quent correspondent  of  "the  fathers."  In  1778  Congress 
wanted  him  to  come  to  this  country  to  manage  the  finances 
of  the  Confederacy.^  In  1783  Yale  conferred  upon  him  the 
degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws.*  To  his  view  of  the  critical 
period  under  the  Articles  we  shall  have  occasion  to  recur. 

Pownall's  corrective  advice^  started  with  a  generaliza- 
tion that  must  have  puzzled  "Their  Freedoms,"  the  sover- 
eigns, "that  is  the  citizens,"  of  America : 

"Feel  as  one  soul  the  concentrated  vigor  of  sovereign 
imperium:  feel  the  self  poise  of  your  natural  station,  the 
center  and  balance  of  your  force,  the  course  and  range  of 
your  organized  energy,  the  spring  of  actuality  in  your 
political  person,  and  you  will  find  it  no  difflcult  matter  to 
stand  firm  on  the  basis  of'your  sovereignty."^ 

After  additional  welter  of  words  and  lengthy  congratula- 
tions to  "Human  Nature"  on  American  liberty,  Pownall 
gets  down  to  a  remedy  for  governmental  defects:  Grant 
Congress  power  to  negotiate  treaties,  he  says,  and  create 
an  executive  organ.     "Some  caution  is  necessary  lest  the 

iDict.  Nat.  Bio.,  XLVI,  265. 

^Discourse  on  Love  of  Country. 

Wip.  Rev.  Corresp.,  Sparks,  II,  47. 

iDict.  Nat.  Bio.,  XLVI,  335. 

5A  Memorial  Addressed  to  the  Sovereigns  of  America,  1783; 

6/6id,  17. 


28  AT    THE   BEOINNINQ 

Committee  of  the  States  sitting  in  the  recess  of  Congress, 
the  representation  of  a  representation,  should  in  ordinary 
supersede  Congress.  But  does  not  the  occasion  of  appoint- 
ing such  a  Committee  arise  from  a  defect,  namely  that  of 
not  providing  for  the  administrative  part  of  government?"^ 

For  the  executive  he  recommends  "a  mixt  monarchical 
form."  Let  there  be  two  annually  elected  consuls,  of  equal 
powers  and  dignities,  responsible  to  the  States  at  large, 
not  Congress.  Let  them  have  high  honors  and  titles — 
Protectors,  Stadtholders,  Presidents — and  represent  "the 
majesty  of  the  people."  Each  will  be  a  check  on  the  other, 
both  will  be  a  check  on  Congress,  from  whose  mandates 
they  shall  have  an  appeal  to  the  States.  And  Congress 
shall  have  a  check  on  them  by  the  stipulation  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  Congress  shall  sign  each  of  their  acts.  Pownall 
neglects  to  say  in  what  manner  the  consuls  are  to  be 
elected  or  to  be  responsible  to  the  states.^ 

With  Washingtonian  sagacity  he  bids  the  young  nation 
"avoid  faction  and  entangling  alliances."  Confederations, 
like  youths,  are  prona  lihidines;  after  the  unifying  com- 
pulsion of  an  external  enemy  is  removed,  faction  may 
raise  its  head.  Further  political  prescription  for  a  success- 
ful future  includes  rotation  in  office,  full  representation 
of  the  people,  steps  toward  eliminating  slavery,  religious 
freedom,  free  trade,  no  imprisonment  for  debt,  and  a 
modification  of  oaths. ^ 

Price,  in  his  panacea,*  placed  a  finger  on  another  crying 
weakness  of  the  Articles  when  he  suggested  that  the  States 
grant  Congress  complete  power  over  raising  revenue  and 
coining  money.  He  wanted  full  treaty  making  preroga- 
tive conferred.  The  Legislature  was  to  be  kept  small  and 
proportioned  to  the  population  after  a  census  had  been 
taken.  For  the  executive  and  judicial  branches  no  reform 
was  offered.  Avoidance  of  hereditary  titles,  primogeniture, 
test  oaths,  a  standing  army  and  of  foreign  trade  were  the 

i/ftirf,  100.  2IM4,  46.  3/&}<7,  93. 

^Observations  on  the  Importance  of  the  American  Revolution,  1784. 


AT    THE    BEGINNING  29 

open  sesame  to  political  success  in  Price's  plan,  provid- 
ing they  were  superadded  to  his  redemption  sinking  fund 
which  should  absorb  the  public  debt,  and  providing  also 
the  other  then  existing  American  institutions  were  pre- 
served. Price  admired  the  state  constitutions  and  the 
American  "yeomanry,  distinguished  people,  clothed  in 
homespun,  strangers  to  luxury." 

When  he  came  to  write  the  closing  paragraph  of  his 
optimistic  Observations  he  was  forced  to  admit  that  actual- 
ities over  the  water  proved  his  essay  to  be  pitched  in  too 
high  a  key.  "My  hopes  are  lowered,"  he  said.  In  fact,  at 
the  close  of  the  first  year  of  our  existence  after  the  war, 
British  friend  and  foe  thought  that  another  year  might  be 
the  last.  When  we  reflect  that  the  American  experiment 
ran  counter  to  all  accepted  political  tenets  of  the  day,  and 
recall  the  shabby  showing  in  political  practice  made  by 
our  forefathers  in  1783 — the  year  of  the  Newburg  Ad- 
dresses, of  New  York's  refusal  to  grant  power  to  Congress 
over  imports,  and  of  Washington's  resignation  before  an 
almost  empty  House — we  can  but  acknowledge  the  sanity 
of  English  doubters.  During  these  trying  times  men 
within  our  borders  feared  the  Confederation  would  after 
all  turn  out,  in  Lord  North's  phrase,  to  be  "a  rope  of  sand." 
How  this  view  kept  gaining  credence  over  the  ocean,  until 
the  Federal  Constitution  compelled  other  conclusions,  we 
shall  see  in  succeeding  chapters. 


CHAPTER  II. 

From  the  Definitive  Treat"?  of  Peace  to  the  Annapolis 

Convention. 

The  definitive  Treaty  of  Peace  was  signed  September 
3rd,  1783.  It  was  ratified  by  Congress  January  14th,  1784. 
The  amazement  in  England^  over  the  fact  that  Congress  had 
diflSculty  in  assembling  a  quorum  even  for  this  important 
negotiation  gives  the  keynote  to  her  attitude  toward  us  in 
the  period  which  we  are  now  to  consider.  An  impotent 
legislature,  a  discordant  union,  anarchy  uncontrollable, 
poverty,  bankruptcy,  final  confusion  and  absorption  by 
the  one  time  mother  country  were  the  verdict  of  our 
British  enemies  and  the  fear  of  our  British  friends. 

Their  views  were  based  on  fact,  not,  as  in  the  instance 
of  the  initial  prophesies,  on  inference.  It  is  unnecessary 
to  restate  here  the  squalid  situation  of  our  national  gov- 
ernment in  the  critical  period.  We  shall  see  its  history 
amply  reflected  in  the  British  accounts  and  impressions. 
They  indicate  full  knowledge  of  the  basic  circumstances 
which  brought  turmoil  in  their  train — the  apotheosis  of 
state  individualism,  the  chaos  of  the  monetary  system, 
the  inability  of  Congress  to  superintend  commercial  affairs, 
to  levy  duties  and  taxes,  or  to  meet  the  interest  on  the  pub- 
lic debt,  the  non-payment  of  quotas,  the  lack  of  executive 
head,  the  necessity  upon  the  central  government  of  acting 
through  the  states  and  not  directly  upon  individuals,  the 
internal  rebellion,  inter-state  rivalry  and  financial  pros- 
tration.    What  more  concerns  us  is  how  England  got  its 

iLanrens  to  Pres.  of  Congress,  24  April,  1784,  Dip.  Corresp.  of  Am. 
Rev.  (Wharton),  VI,  795. 

31 


32        TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION 

information  and  what  are  the  sources  upon  which  our 
opinion  of  their  opinion  is  to  be  formed. 

First  of  all  the  cabinet  kept  up  a  system  of  espionage. 
Examination  of  unpublished  dispatches  in  the  Colonial 
Office  Papers  and  Foreign  Office  Records  at  the  Public 
Record  Office,  London,  reveals  the  existence  of  several 
agents  who  secretly  kept  the  government  advised.  There 
is  some  evidence  that  at  the  beginning  Great  Britain  really 
considered  reconquering  the  lost  colonies.  There  is  much 
evidence  that  she  watched  the  progress  of  affairs  across 
the  Atlantic  with  a  sleepless  eye,  perhaps  fancying  the 
day  was  not  far  off  when,  of  their  own  free  will,  the  dis- 
tracted states  would  seek  to  be  retaken  into  the  fold. 

Some  of  the  agents  are  anonymous.  Lord  Dorchester, 
more  commonly  known  to  us  as  Sir  Guy  Carleton,  while 
Governor  General  of  Canada  forwarded  in  his  mails  many 
unsigned  "Observations,"  and  "Intelligences"  which  were 
sent  to  him  overland  from  the  States.  Other  tell-tale  dis- 
patches were  conveyed  to  the  Ministry  direct.  They  run 
from  1783-1791.  A  few  of  these  documents  are  written  in 
such  masterly  fashion  and  with  such  illuminating  com- 
ment that  some  relevant  portions  are  printed.  They  show 
that  at  least  one  man  of  insight  and  culture  served  the 
British  cause. 

Certain  other  monthly  "Occurrences  from  New  York" 
are  signed  by  P.  Allaire,  a  mediocre  person  who  received 
£200  a  year  for  his  underhandness.^  The  communications 
were  addressed  to  Sir  George  Yonge,  Secretary  at  War,  and 
by  Yonge  passed  on  to  Carmarthen,  Grenville,  Rose  and 
occasionally  Pitt.  They  continue  from  1786-90,  when 
Carmarthen  ordered  them  stopped.^  Allaire's  method  of 
securing  facts  may  be  judged  from  his  letter  of  August  3rd, 
1786,  announcing  that  he  had  taken  in  as  boarders  "David 
Ramsay,  Delegate  from  South  Carolina  and  Col.  Lee  of 
Virginia.  .  .  .  My  object  in  permitting  these  gentlemen 

lAust  to  Yonge,  2  March,  1791,  F.  O.  Recs.  Amer.  Ser.  I,  Vol.  IX. 
2Aust  to  Yonge,  20  November,  1790,  Ihid,  Vol.  VIII. 


TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION        33 

in  my  house  was  for  certain  purposes  you  are  no  stranger 
to,  or  be  assured  I  would  not  have  condescended  to  take 
boarders.  ...  In  long  winter  evenings  something  may  be 
acquired  and  learned. 

"You  ask  to  have  the  debates  in  Congress — it's  impos- 
sible as  no  person  is  admitted  but  the  members.  I  make 
no  doubt  that  some  of  the  members,  being  commercial  men, 
might  accept  of  your  offer  and  do  business  with  your 
house.  .  .  .  The  President  of  Congress^-  has  agreed  to 
board  with  me."^  Other  dispatches  prove  that  the  word 
commercial  in  Allaire's  vocabulary  meant  venal.  He  said 
he  would  not  propose  to  Ramsay  and  Lee  "their  going 
into  the  business,  as  the  United  States  would  be  too  little 
for  my  residence."^ 

During  1783-4  Edward  Bancroft,,  who  sold  to  the  British 
government  Deane's  confidences  about  the  mission  to 
France  during  the  Revolution,  was  in  this  country  for- 
warding continual  impressions  of  the  blackest  hue  and 
giving  advice  as  to  the  best  method  of  getting  the  colonies 
again  under  control.  After  the  federal  government  was 
started  Major  George  Beckwith  was  ordered  from  Canada 
on  frequent  trips  to  the  national  seat,  and  his  reports  to 
Dorchester  were  sent  across  to  the  home  government. 
Beckwith's  presence  was  known  to  the  United  States 
officials,^  but  the  extent  of  his  underground  inquisitive- 
ness  was  concealed. 

Added  to  the  private  agents  whose  accounts  influenced 
the  expressed  English  opinion,  there  were  of  course  the 
diplomatic  and  consular  officers.  Sir  John  Temple  came 
out  as  first  Consul  General  in  1785,  arriving  November 
20th.  Phineas  Bond,  who  made  his  headquarters  at  Phila- 
delphia, became  Consul  in  1786.  George  Miller,  Consul 
for  the  Southern  States,  received  his  appointment  the  year 
following.  Before  the  submarine  cable  and  ubiquitous  press 
correspondent,  the  diplomat  was  a  vehicle  of  news  and 

iNathaniel  Gorham  was  President  at  this  time. 
2F.  O.  Eecs.  Amer.,  Ser.  I,  Vol.  IV. 
sjefEerson,  Writings  (Ford),  I,  173;  V.  324. 


34       TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION 

moulder  of  opinion.  From  the  dispatches  of  these  men, 
as  later  from  those  of  Hammond  and  Liston,  the  Min- 
isters, and  Hamilton  and  Macdonogh,  the  additional  Con- 
suls, we  shall  glean  some  English  criticism  of  American 
affairs.^ 

Besides  the  contemporary  letters  and  memoirs,  some 
English  valuations  are  to  be  gathered  from  editorial  ex- 
pressions in  the  press,  and  what  the  popular  view  must 
have  been  can  be  conjectured  from  the  unceasing  stream 
of  stories  about  American  lawlessness  and  disruption 
which  newspapers  and  magazines  published.  They  ran 
excerpts  from  American  papers  brought  by  the  packet 
boats.  They  published  letters  from  New  York,  Boston, 
Philadelphia,  Charleston.^  They  purveyed  American  in- 
telligence received  in  the  most  roundabout  fashion,  regu- 
larly from  St.  Yago  de  la  Vega  and  occasionally  even  via 
Vienna !  The  worse  the  news,  the  more  they  printed.  As 
Jay  put  it,  we  really  experienced  more  tranquility  than 
"the  English  newspapers  allowed,  or  their  writers  seemed 
to  wish  us."^  A  Swiss  gentleman,  depending  on  their  ac- 
counts, told  Jefferson  that  he  feared  Dr.  Franklin  would 
be  stoned  by  the  people  for  having  been  instrumental  in 
the  secession  from  Great  Britain.* 

During  this  perilous  period  scarcely  a  word  of  praise 
is  to  be  found  anywhere  expressed  by  anyone.  In  1784  a 
convention  of  delegates  of  the  Koyal  Burghs  of  Scotland, 
bent  upon  parliamentary  reform,  drank  some  toasts  to  "The 
American  Congress"  and  said  the  American  people  had 
taught  the  Scottish  to  assert  their  rights,^  but  this  en- 
dorsement really  related  back  to  the  Eevolutionary  days 
instead  of  to  the  contemporary  juncture.  In  1785  a  Fox- 
ite  publication  lauded  American  freedom,  but  admonished 

iBond's  letters  are  in  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1896,  I,  517-69.  A  few 
of  Temple's  are  given  in  the  appendices  to  Bancroft's  Hist,  of  the 
Formation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America 
(1882). 

2Franklin  thought  most  of  them  fabricated  in  London,  Works,  VIII, 
369.  Jefferson  thought  the  writers  were  employed  by  the  Ministry, 
Writings,  IV,  102.  ^Papers,  III,  188.  ^Writings,  IV,  34. 

5.¥orn.  Herald,  8  July,  1784. 


TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION       35 

the  former  colonists  to  form  a  system  of  government  which 
would  establish  the  authority  of  Congress.^  In  1786 
there  was  considerable  praise  for  the  Virginia  act  of  re- 
ligious toleration.^  But  the  stern  facts  of  American  pro- 
ceedings, added  to  the  bitterness  of  the  Tories^  and  the 
general  dissatisaction  with  the  legislation  of  the  States 
in  alleged  violation  of  the  treaty  guarantees  about  Loyalist 
property  and  ante-bellum  merchant's  debts  precluded  any 
sentiments  of  benevolence. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  British  predictions  at  this 
time  were  six :  There  would  be  another  revolution.  There 
would  be  no  government  at  all.  There  would  be  general 
financial  ruin.  The  States  would  not  act  as  a  nation.  They 
would  come  back  to  the  supervision  of  Great  Britain,  as  a 
large  American  party  already  desired.  The  "most  miser- 
able country,"  "the  Disunited  States,"  because  of  mutual 
jealousies  and  the  diverse  interests  of  the  agrarian  and 
commercial  classes,*  would  break  into  two  or  three^  or  thir- 
teen^ independent  republics.  As  a  consequence  of  these  ex- 
pectations the  Ministry  disregarded  our  commercial  over- 
tures, and  further  seem  to  have  busied  themselves  injuring 
our  reputation  on  the  continent.^ 

The  inference  that  there  would  be  no  government  and 
another  revolution  was  based  on  the  impotence  of  Con- 
gress. "We  hear  that  the  Committee  of  the  States  which 
were  left  by  Congress  are  dispersed,  so  that  the  government 
of  the  United  States  is  entirely  suspended."^  "The  state 
of  Legislative  power  is  such  in  the  United  States  as  to  give 
alarming  symptoms  that  some  other  change  will  take  place 
in  that  continent,"  said  the  London  Chronicle  shortly 
before  it  announced  the  secession  of  seven  members  of 
Congress."^  Those  who  attend  are  mainly  actuated  by  the 

-i-Pol.  Herald,  I,  25. 

Wents,  Mag.,  May  and  September,  1785. 

3For  Johnson's  attitude  in  1784,  see  Boswell's  Life  (Hill,  1887),  IV, 
283. 

4Adams  to  Jay,  Works,  VIIT,  289. 

SDeane  to  Beaiimarchais,  2  April,  1784,  Deane  Papers,  N.  Y.  Hist. 

6Lond.  Chronicle,  2  November,  1784. 

TPost,  42.       SLon.  Chronicle,  2  November,  1784.     926  February,  1784. 


36       TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  TEE  ANNAP0LI8  CONVENTION 

desire  of  preserving  the  appearance  of  regular  govern- 
ment," said  another  paper.^  Though  six  weeks  late  in 
coming  together  already,  "still  but  four  states  are  repre- 
sented and  some  of  the  Southern  members  have  gone  home 
disgusted,"  was  a  further  observation.^  Congress  is  "ut- 
terly contemptible,"^  "too  feeble  to  command  either  respect 
or  obedience,"*  "have  neither  power,  authority,  nor  credit, 
each  state  taking  pride  in  showing  their  sovereignty  and 
separate  authority,"^  wrote  Allaire,  Beckwith  and  Temple 
respectively.  Refusal  of  the  States  to  pay  quotas  or  to 
grant  power  over  navigation  laws,  and  the  lack  of  an 
executive  branch  were  duly  dwelt  upon.^  The  Political 
Magazine  quotes  McFingal, 

"You  shall  be  viceroys,  it's  true. 
But  we'll  be  viceroys  o'er  you." 

"Everything  hastens  to  another  revolution  in  America," 
wrote  William  Smith  to  Nepean.^  Other  comments  were : 
"The  country  will  experience  some  dreadful  political  con- 
vulsion ;"^  "it  is  more  than  probable  that  general  confusion 
will  take  place  ;"^  "every  ship  from  the  new  states  brings 
fresh  accounts  of  their  deranged  affairs — they  have  be- 
come progressively  worse  and  worse  and  now  bid  fair  to 
come  to  an  issue  ;"^*^  "there  are  two  classes  of  merchants 
and  farmers  who  divide  nearly  all  America,  are  discon- 
tented and  distressed.  Some  great  change  is  approach- 
ing."^^ 

Poverty,  bankruptcy  and  business  inertia  were  repre- 

iPm6.  Advertiser,  8  December,  1785. 

2Smith  to  Sydney,  11  January,  1785,  F.  O.  Eecs.,  Amer.,  Ser.  I,  Vol. 
III. 

3"Intelligence,"  4  June,  1785,  Itid. 

4B,  to  Fraser,  28  May,  1785,  F.  O.  Recs.,  Vol.  III. 

5T.  to  C,  4  August,  1786,  F.  O.  Recs.,  Vol.  IV. 

^Mom.  Post,  16  April,  1785;  Mom.  Herald,  30  June,  1786;  Gents. 
Mag.,  August,  1784 ;  Pol.  Mag.,  April,  1787. 

77  August,  1785,  F.  O,  Recs.,  Vol.  III. 

Wents.  Mag.,  February,  1784. 

9T.  to  C,  4  October,  1786,  F.  O.  Recs.,  Vol.  IV. 

lOMorn.  Post,  30  June,  1785. 

""Intelligence,"  4  June,  1785,  F.  O.  Recs.,  Vol.  III. 


TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION        37 

sented  as  contributing  in  bringing  on  the  revolution 
which  might  lead  the  colonies  under  the  old  flag.  The 
form  of  government  was  destructive  of  trade  and  com- 
merce.^ It  was  said  that  not  a  man  in  Georgia  could 
afford  a  bottle  of  wine.^  There  were  daily  bankruptcies  in 
New  York  and  its  people  were  ruined.^  Business  every- 
where was  at  a  standstill.^  Cattle  were  being  seized  for 
taxes  from  "Boston  to  the  Carolinas."^ 

"There  is  a  new  mode  of  taxation  in  the  State  of  New 
York  which  cannot  fail  to  be  pleasant  to  a  people  who  are 
so  fond  of  freedom ;  this  is  proportioning  the  collection  to 
the  amount  of  goods  a  man  may  have  in  his  shop,  and  seiz- 
ing perhaps  an  hundred  pounds  at  a  time  in  the  shop  of 
a  wealthy  man,  and  taking  not  a  fraction  from  his  neigh- 
bor."^ "People  are  fleeing  to  Vermont  to  avoid  the  anarchy 
and  confusion  which  prevail  in  other  quarters."^ 

In  consequence  of  all  these  reports  the  English  papers 
were  filled  with  warnings  to  avoid  business  with  Ameri- 
can merchants  who  would  not  pay  debts  contracted  before 
the  war  and  could  not  pay  those  accruing  since.^  The 
London  Gazette  of  19  October,  1784,  announces  the  fail- 
ure of  Messrs.  Blanchard  and  Lewis  for  £227,000  "because 
American  merchants  won't  pay."  Two  days  later  another 
unpaid  English  factor  shot  himself  "and  left  a  discon- 
solate widow  and  nine  children."^  American  knavery  was 
a  favorite  theme.  The  laws  of  the  states  discriminating 
against  English  creditors  were  published  and  denounced. 
"Why  should  the  Americans  call  the  Algerines  pirates?" 
asked  the  Puhlic  Advertiser}^  The  complaints  of  British 
merchants  to  the  Ministry  demanding  some  protection 
led  to  the  appointment  of  Phineas  Bond.^^ 

iPol.  Mag.,  January,  1785. 

2Ibid.,  Febriiary,  1785. 

3"Intelligence,"  4  June,  1785,  F.  O.  Recs.,  Vol.  III. 

*Lon.  Chronicle,  26  February,  1784. 

5Morn.  Post,  25  April,  1785. 

sMorn.  Post,  2  May,  1785.  7Ditto. 

»Morn.  Post,  29  June,  1785. 

9Z/0n.  Chronicle,  21  October,  1784.  1012  Aug-ust,  1786. 

iiSee  Bond's  first  letter.  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Rept.,  1896,  I,  517. 


3S       TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION 

Assertions  of  American  political  and  financial  anarchy 
were  broad  in  1785,  but  broader  in  1786.  In  the  former 
year  the  Political  Magazine  told  its  readers  that  chaos  was 
at  hand — three  counties  in  North  Carolina  revolting,  Ver- 
mont and  the  New  Hampshire  disaifected,  the  State  of 
New  York  refusing  to  grant  Congress  power  to  lay  an  im- 
post, Connecticut  "petitioning  to  come  under  the  protec- 
tion of  Great  Britain,"  the  island  of  Nantucket  about  to 
decide  (sic)  forgery  and  bankruptcy  making  alarming 
progress."^  Under  the  caption  "False  Prophecies  for  1786 
and  Eealities  of  1786"  the  Public  Advertiser  ran  a  para- 
graph which,  though  over-stressed,  sums  up  the  general 
English  attitude  toward  the  close  of  the  perilous  period : 

"Anarchy  their  King — laws  disregarded — Justice  driven 
from  their  dominions — roguery  encouraged  by  their  wild 
assemblies — a  people  disunited  in  all — their  shipping  rot- 
ting in  their  neglected  ports — their  Empire  crumbling  to 
atoms — treacherous — wretched  and  poor — harrassed  by  the 
Aborigines — unable  to  avenge  or  protect  themselves,  they 
are  insulted  by  all — they  are  a  people  not  to  be  trusted — 
a  people  laughed  at  and  despised  by  all  nations — an  ex- 
ample of  rebellion  and  ingratitude ! !  !"^ 

There  was  but  one  way  out  from  the  English  viewpoint 
— ^return  to  the  protecting  aegis  of  Great  Britain,^  a  con- 
clusion, it  was  believed,  devoutedly  wished  by  a  large 
number  of  our  citizens.  We  have  seen  the  solution  offered 
in  1783.  We  shall  see  it  suggested  again.  "It  is  under- 
stood," Washington  wrote  to  Jacob  Read,  "that  the  British 
Cabinet  wished  to  recover  the  United  States."*  In  1784 
their  agent  Bancroft  writes  that  the  best  way  of  breaking 
the  colonies  in  twain  and  resecuring  them  is  to  enforce 
strict  commercial  discrimination  until  they  "clamor  loudly 

lAugust,  1785. 

212  August. 

iPolit.  Herald,  1785,  II,  38 ;  Eur.  Map.,  December,  1786 ;  Adams  to  Jay, 
21  October,  1785,  Works,  VIII,  325;  Smith  to  Jay,  6  December,  1785, 
Dip.  Corresp.   (1783-89),  V,  377. 

4X1  Augnst,  1784,  Works,  X,  398. 


TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION       39 

.  .  .  for  the  former  connection  with  Great  Britain."^ 
Temple,  two  years  later,  comes  back  to  the  old  theme: 
"I'erhaps  in  the  hour  of  their  distress  and  confusion  some 
or  all  of  the  states  may  seek  for  European  friendship, 
council  and  advice,  if  they  do  so,  my  most  hearty  wish  is, 
that  wisdom  may  lead  them  to  look  up  to  that  sovereign 
to  whom  they  once  happily  belonged,  and  who  only  of  all 
sovereigns  on  earth,  hath  or  can  have  any  unfeigned  regard 
for  their  real  welfare  and  happiness.  My  voice  and  my 
utmost  influence  in  this  country,  still  guided  by  prudence, 
shall  steadfastly  and  faithfully  correspond  with  my 
wishes."^ 

These  accounts  and  predictions  were  not  merely  the 
space-filling  fancies  of  newspaper  hacks  and  the  expressions 
of  secret  agents  and  diplomats  eager  to  please  the  ear  of 
the  Foreign  Office.  They  reflect  the  thoughts  of  persons 
of  low  and  high  degree.  No  less  a  man  than  our  former 
advocate,  Edmund  Burke,  acquiesced  in  such  deductions; 
and  like  comments  were  sent  out  by  Colonel  Thomas 
Dundas  to  our  former  enemy.  Lord  Cornwallis,  then  in 
India. 

When  Burke,  in  the  summer  of  1785,  was  on  his  way 
from  London  to  Glasgow  where  he  was  to  be  reinstalled 
Kector  of  the  University,  he  stopped  to  visit  Thomas 
Somerville,  the  divine,  at  Jedburgh.  With  Burke  was  his 
son,  Windham,  and  Sir  Gilbert  Eliott.  Writing  his 
memoirs  in  1814,  Somerville  says  of  this  visit : 

"I  was  not  a  little  surprised  by  the  disparaging  and  even 
contemptuous  terms  in  which  he  expressed  himself  with 
regard  to  the  Americans.  .  .  .  He  said  he  would  not  be 
surprised  at  the  defection  of  the  colonies  from  the  union. 
I  believe  he  mentioned  the  Southern  States.  Their  con- 
stitution was  not  then  settled,  and  the  democratic  party 
threatened  to  overpower  the  interests  of  the  federalists,  to 
whom  he  gave  full  credit  for  wisdom  and  patriotism.     Of 

126  August,  1784,  F.  O.  Papers,  Ibid,  Vol.  III. 
24  October,  1786,  F.  O.  Papers,  Ibid,  Vol.  IV. 


40        TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION 

Washington  he  spoke  with  enthusiasm,  and  said  that  his 
character  would  be  transmitted  to  the  latest  ages  as  the 
first  of  heroes  and  patriots."^ 

Dundas  wrote  Cornwallis  in  1786:  "The  Americans  are 
a  most  unhappy  people.  Every  day  brings  us  a  new  ac- 
count of  their  distracted  state.  Some  accounts  say  that  the 
present  wish  of  the  country  is  to  return  to  the  situation 
they  were  in  before  the  war."^ 

The  Cabinet,  too,  seems  to  have  been  convinced  that 
America  had  no  central  government  and  had  little  liklihood 
of  getting  one.^  It  was  hostile,*  despite  the  King's  diplo- 
matic assurance  that  he  "would  be  first  to  meet  the  friend- 
ship of  the  United  States."^  Evasively,  if  not  discourte- 
ously, it  repeatedly  kept  our  envoys  waiting.  When  in 
April,  1786,  Carmarthen  granted  an  interview  to  the  Com- 
missioners seeking  a  commercial  treaty  his  Lordship 
"harped  on  the  old  string,  the  insufficiency  of.  the  powers 
of  Congress."^  The  string  had  been  harped  on  somewhat 
stridently  in  Dorset's  dispatch  on  the  offer  to  conclude  a 
commercial  arrangement,  which  set  forth  in  official  form 
the  Cabinet's  view  of  American  government  during  this 
period : 

"I  have  been  in  answer  thereto  instructed  to  learn  from 
you,  gentlemen,  what  is  the  real  nature  of  the  powers  with 
which  you  are  invested,  whether  you  are  merely  com- 
missioned by  Congress,  or  whether  you  have  received 
separate  powers  from  the  respective  states.  A  Committee 
of  North  American  merchants  have  waited  upon  his 
Majesty's  principal  Secretary  of  State  for  foreign  affairs 
to  express  how  anxiously  they  wish  to  be  informed  upon 
this  subject,  repeated  experience  having  taught  them  in 

iJ/y  Own  Life  and  Times,  Thomas  Sumerville,  1861,  222. 

Worresp.  of  Charles,  First  Marquis  Cornwallis.  1859.  I,  279. 

3Adams  to  Jay,  19  July,  1785,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783-89),  IV,  241. 

4Jeff.  to  Page,  4  May,  1786,  Writings  (Ford),  IV,  212.  Jay  and  Wajsh- 
ington  thought  England  had  a  hand  in  Shay's  rebellion.  Jay  to  Jeff., 
4  December,  1786,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783-89)  III,  Washington,  Works,  XI. 

5 Adams  to  Jay,  2  June,  1785,  Dip.  Corresp.  (783-89),  IV,  198. 

«Report  of  Commissioners  to  Jay,  25  April,  1786,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783- 
89),  II,  336. 


TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION        41 

particular,  as  well  as  the  public  in  general,  how  little  the 
authority  of  Congress  could  avail  aught  in  any  respect, 
when  the  interest  of  any  one  individual  state  was  even 
concerned,  and  particulaly  so,  where  the  concerns  of  that 
particular  State  might  be  supposed  to  militate  against  such 
resolutions  as  Congress  might  think  proper  to  adopt. 

The  apparent  determination  of  the  respective  states  to 
regulate  their  own  separate  interests,  renders  it  absolutely 
necessary,  towards  forming  a  permanent  system  of  com- 
merce that  my  Court  should  be  informed  how  far  the  Com- 
missioners can  be  duly  authorized  to  enter  into  any  en- 
gagements with  Great  Britain,  which  it  may  not  be  in  the 
power  of  any  one  of  the  States  to  render  totally  fruitless 
and  ineffectual."^ 

Jefferson,  who  was  one  of  the  Commissioners  addressed, 
has  left  it  on  record  that  he  knew  this  letter  was  couched 
in  softer  tones  than  were  the  instructions  of  the  Ministry 
to  Dorset.^  When  Adams,  another  of  the  Commissioners, 
appeared  at  St.  James's  as  our  first  Minister  to  Great 
Britain,^  in  one  of  the  newspapers  which  continually 
ridiculed  him,  appeared  this  squib: 

"Mr.  Adams  is  in  rather  an  unusual  predicament,  for 
though  he  represents  all  the  States,  he  in  fact  represents 
none,  at  least  no  one  particular  State  is  answerable  for 
his  appointment,  neither  can  he  name  one  that  is  ready  to 
pay  his  expenses."* 

The  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  writing  to  Pitt  about 
a  treaty  containing  a  "most  favored  nation"  clause  said, 
"Let  me  ask  .  .  .  whether  the  American  states  are  to  be 
considered  among  the  'nations?'  "^  It  seems  likely  that 
uncertainty  of  this  kind,  as  much  as  any  other  circum- 

ID.  to  Commissioners,  26  March,  1785,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783-89),  II.  297. 
^Writings,  IV,  42. 

31  June,  1785,  A.  to  Jay,  Works,  VIII,  254. 
<Mom.  Post,  14  June,  1785. 

5Mss.  of  Duke  of  Kutland,  Hist.  Mss.  Com.,  14th  R«pt.,  Append.,  1^.  I, 
III,   338. 


42        TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION 

stance,  materially  influenced  the  decision  to  avoid  a  com- 
mercial treaty  and  to  omit  an  ambassador.^ 

Lafayette  asserted  that  the  English  Cabinet,  not  content 
with  scorning  intercourse  with  the  States,  was  poisoning 
the  minds  of  the  administrations  in  European  countries.^ 
"I  find  the  misrepresentations  of  Great  Britain  have  not 
been  fruitless,"  he  wrote  Jefferson  from  Vienna,  and  said 
that  the  King  of  Prussia  asked  him  about  the  future  exist- 
ence of  America.^  "Some  thought  that  democratical  in- 
stitutions will  not,  can  not,  last,  that  the  States  will  quarrel 
with  each  other,  that  a  King,  or  at  least  a  nobility  were 
indispensable."^  London  gloated  over  "the  contempt  with 
which  America  is  held  throughout  Europe."^  Franklin 
said  he  published  the  American  Constitution  in  French 
and  gave  a  de  luxe  copy  to  each  ambassador  at  Paris  and 
another  for  his  master  to  counteract  the  British  gossip.® 
The  envoys  accredited  to  King  George's  court  were  ever 
asking  Adams  about  the  divisions  between  the  states.' 

Our  English  liberal  friends,  quite  reduced  in  number, 
viewed  all  this  business  with  alarm.  Further,  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Order  of  Cincinnati  they  considered  a  mistake. 
Walpole  wrote  the  Countess  of  Upper  Ossory,  "American 
news  may  now  be  a  neutral  article:  Washington,  qui,  il  me 
senible,  tranche  un  peu  du  roi,  has  instituted  a  military 
order,  and  calls  it  the  order  of  Cincinnati,  ce  qui  tranche 
un  pen  du  pedant."^  He  later  speaks  as  if  he  thought  the 
society  was  to  act  as  an  upper  house. ^  The  newspapers 
cried  out  that  the  Cincinnati  proved  that  colonists  could 
not  get  on  without  a  nobility. 

Price,  who  had  composed  the  glowing  Observations,  dis- 

iBancroft,  Hist,  of  the  Constitution,  II,  469. 

2Washington  comments  on  the  policy,  Works,  XI.     Dum.as  reports  it 
from  The  Hague,  Dip.  Corresp.   (1783-89),  VII,  274. 
SDip.  Corresp.   (1783-89),  I,  434. 
4  Ditto. 

5Puh.  Advertiser,  24  August,  1785. 
eWorks,  VIII,  391. 
VAdams,  Works,  VIII,  347. 
^Letters   (1903-05),  XIII,  105. 
sibid,  1108. 


TREATY  OF  PEACE  TO  THE  ANNAPOLIS  CONVENTION        43 

liked  the  Cincinnati ;  and  he  was  distraught  by  the  events 
over  the  water.  He  confesses  in  a  second  edition  of  his 
optimistic  work  that  he  fears  his  expectations  Utopian,  but 
to  Jay  he  writes  that  he  still  dreams  of  a  powerful,  happy 
people  "with  a  strong  federal  union.  ...  At  present  your 
affairs,  I  am  afraid,  are  far  from  being  in  this  train."^ 
Lansdowne,  addressing  the  same  correspondent,  states  that 
he  is  "anxious  to  hear  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  has  taken  a  solid  consistence.  .  .  ."^  On  December 
19th,  1786,  the  Public  Advertiser  reported  that  the  An- 
napolis Convention  had  called  a  meeting  of  delegates  at 
Philadelphia  the  following  May  to  revise  the  Articles  of 
Confederation. 

125  November,  1786,  Jay,  Papers  and  Corresp.,  Ill,  219. 

24  September,  1785,  Jay,  Ihid,  III,  189.  W.  S.  Smith  wrote  'Jay, 
9  February,  1787,  that  Landsdowne  had  publicly  suggested  an  alliance 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  U.  S.,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783-89),  V,  452. 


CHAPTER  III. 
At  the  Dawn  of  Federal  Existbnoi. 

Though  the  English  estimate  of  the  American  govern- 
ment was  at  its  lowest  ebb  in  the  Fall  and  Winter  of  1786, 
there  was  but  little  rise  in  the  Spring  and  Summer  of  1787. 
Stories  of  anarchy  and  disunion^  and  poverty^  continued. 
The  approaching  Convention,  repeatedly  mentioned  in 
newspaper  and  official  dispatch,  was  looked  at  askance.' 
It  would  probably  accomplish  little;*  perhaps  divide  the 
country  into  four  parts  ;^  perhaps  choose  Washington 
"Stadtholder."®  Strange  rumors  of  the  proceedings  within 
the  closed  doors  at  Philadelphia  were  circulated  by  London 
gossip.  Something  was  afoot  behind  the  doors,  but  what 
it  would  turn  out  to  be  was  a  subject  of  conjecture,  dis- 
tortion, and  amusing  inference. 

In  the  Colonial  Office  Papers  preserved  in  the  Public 
Record  Office,  London,  there  is  a  dispatch  from  one  of 
Britain's  secret  agents  in  New  York  sent  to  Sydney  via 
Dorchester.^  It  is  apparently  written  in  March,  1787. 
Dorchester  characterizes  the  communication  "of  a  very 
interesting  nature."  It  is  so  interesting  and  so  ably  written 
that  it  is  printed  below  nearly  entire.  Further,  it  sums 
up  admirably  the  general  English  opinion  in  1787,  with 

^Eng.  Rev.,  March;  Pol.  Mag.,  and  Oentleman's,  May;  WhiteJiall  Ev. 
Post,  6  Jan.,  18  and  24  March ;  Bristol  Journal,  6  and  13  January. 

^Morn.  Chronicle,  24  July ;  Whitehall  Ev.  Post,  12  July. 

^Whitehall  Ev.  Post,  6  July ;  Pol.  Mag.,  May. 

4Temple  to  Car.,  7  June,  F.  O.  Eecs.,  Vol.  V. 

5 Pol.  Mag.,  Augoist. 

6Mor«.  Chronicle,  4  AugTist. 

7With  Dorchester  to  Sydney,  10  April,  1787,  in  C.  O.  Papers,  Canada, 
Class  42,  Vol.  L. 

45 


46  AT    THE   DAWN    OF   FEDERAL   EXISTENCE 

illuminating  sidelights  on  American  views;  and  it  contains 
some  full  but  elusive  references  to  the  contemporary  move- 
ment in  America  for  summoning  one  of  King  George's  sons 
to  be  our  King : 

"At  this  moment  there  is  not  a  gentleman  in  the  States 
from  New  Hampshire  to  Georgia  who  does  not  view  the 
present  government  with  contempt,  who  is  not  convinced 
of  its  inefficacy,  and  who  is  not  desirous  of  changing  it  for 
a  monarchy. 

"They  are  divided  into  three  classes.^ 

"The  first  class  propose  a  federal  government  somewhat 
resembling  the  State  of  New  York,  with  an  annual  ex- 
ecutive, Senate  and  House  of  Assembly. 

"The  second  wish  to  have  a  Sovereign  for  life  with  two 
triennial  Houses  of  Parliament. 

"The  third  are  desirous  of  establishing  a  hereditary 
government  as  nearly  resembling  Great  Britain  as  possible. 

"Of  the  first  class,  many  look  up  to  General  Washington ; 
those  of  the  second  and  third  classes  cast  their  eyes  to  the 
House  of  Hanover  for  a  Sovereign;  they  wish  for  one  of 
the  King's  sons.^ 

"The  third  class  is  the  most  powerful  and  composed  of 
some  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  States. 

"They  esteem  the  plan  of  the  first  class  every  way  inad- 
equate, that  of  the  second  in  favor  of  an  elective  monarchy, 
very  objectionable,  witness  the  condition  of  Poland;  but 
view  their  own  system,  if  successful,  as  affording  the  fairest 
prospect  of  respectable  and  stable  government.  They  have 
already  fixed  upon  two  gentlemen  to  go  to  Great  Britain 
upon  this  subject,  when  they  judge  that  matters  are  ripe 
for  it. 

"As  to  the  Convention  to  be  held  in  Philadelphia  in  May 
next,  however  able,  individually  considered,  it  is  impractic- 

iDitto,  Bristol  Journal,  16  June,  1787. 

2The  Duke  of  York,  sometimes  called  the  Bishop  of  Osnaburg.  For 
American  discussion  of  a  king,  see  G,  T.  Curtis,  Constitutional  History 
of  the  United  States  (1903),  I,  623-26;  Max  Farrand  Framing  of  the 
Constitution  (1913),  173-4;  Alexander  Hamilton,  Works  (1904),  I,  423. 


AT    THE   DAWN    OF   FEDERAL   EXISTENCE  47 

able  for  them  to  adopt  any  measures  capable  of  giving 
vigor  to  the  present  federal  government,  which  will  be  ap- 
proved first  in  Congress  and  afterwards  in  the  different 
legislatures. 

"In  fact,  the  gentlemen  composing  the  third  class  expect 
nothing  from  the  convention  in  their  public  capacity,  but 
wish  to  profit  from  such  a  meeting,  to  know  fully  each 
other's  opinions,  to  form  arrangements,  and  to  take  such 
steps  as  are  proper  to  give  them  effect. 

"The  present  federal  government  is  weakness  itself,  it 
must  fall  to  pieces  in  the  course  of  next  Winter,  and  is  held 
together  now  merely  by  the  prospect  of  the  Convention's 
being  able  to  do  something  effective.^ 

"The  present  public  distresses  are  unsurmountable. 

"Foreign  powers  are  pressing  for  their  money. 

"France  turning  her  claims  over  to  Holland. 

"The  French  interest  sunk  to  nothing. 

"Mr.  Jay,  the  Minister  for  foreign  affairs,  has  reported 
fully  to  Congress  that  not  only  the  facts  stated  in  the 
memorial  transmitted  by  Lord  Carmarthen  are  true,^  but 
that  there  are  many  others  of  a  similar  nature  not  known 
in  Great  Britain:  Congress  are  fully  sensible  of  these  in- 
fractions, but  find  themselves  so  feeble  in  every  respect, 
that  they  do  not  choose  to  venture  any  public  recommenda- 
tion to  the  States  on  the  subject :  they  will  remain  in  New 
York. 

"The  gentlemen  of  the  second  class  do  not  wish  Vermont' 
to  confederate  at  present,  although  no  strangers  to  the 
part  she  has  acted.  They  wish  Great  Britain  to  retain  the 
forts  at  this  time,  and  to  be  formed  at  present,  but  think 
a  few  particular  indulgences  might  be  well. 

"There  is  no  living  under  the  present  government. 

iDitto,  Allaire,  17  March;  Bond,  1  May;  Temple,  3  May;  F.  O.  Kecs. 
Amer.,  Ser.  I,  Vol.  V. 

228  February,  1786,  Dip.  Corresp.   (1783-84),  V,  17. 

3The  Colonial  Office  Papers,  Canada,  contain  many  interesting  let- 
ters relating  to  the  efforts  of  the  Aliens  to  attach  Vermont  to  Canada. 


48  AT    THE    DAWN    OF   FEDERAL   EXISTENCE 

"They  are  resolved  to  run  all  risks  in  carrying  their 
points. 

"Even  the  Presbyterian  clergymen  are  become  advocates 
for  monarchy;  the  community  in  general  finding  from  ex- 
perience, that  a  Kepublican  system,  however  beautiful  in 
theory,  is  not  calculated  for  an  extensive  country. 

"General  Washington  has  been  lately  sounded  upon  the 
subject,  but  nothing  will  induce  him  to  return  into  pub- 
lic life,  conscious  that  he  has  acquired  greater  military 
glory,  perfectly  satisfied  with  his  condition,  without  chil- 
dren, and  having  no  relations,  who  are  men  of  ambition 
or  active  talents,  this  gentleman  is  determined  to  pass  the 
remainder  of  his  life  in  retirement  and  peace. 

"Notwithstanding  this  opinion  concerning  General 
Washington,  there  is  another  which  suggests  that  this 
gentleman  looks  forward  to  the  supreme  power,  and  that 
he  will  not  be  present  at  the  Convention  from  motives  of 
policy ;  and  that  Dr.  Griffiths  of  Virginia  who  is  soon  going 
to  England  in  hopes  of  being  consecrated  a  Bishop,  had 
been  employed  by  him  to  sound  the  country  on  this  very 
subject. 

"From  other  sources  of  information  it  is  understood  that 
men  of  ability  in  the  States  are  in  general  strongly  im- 
pressed with  the  necessity  of  establishing  a  monarchy; 
they  find  their  present  government  neither  efficient  nor 
respectable;  they  are  greatly  divided  in  opinion  upon  this 
subject,  whether  they  shall  raise  an  American  to  this 
dignity,  or  procure  a  Sovereign  from  Great  Britain  or  from 
France.  General  Washington  has  a  party  of  friends,  he 
will  not  be  present  at  the  Convention  in  May,  but  a  strong 
idea  prevails,  that  he  looks  forward  to  that  dignity,  has 
done  so  for  years,  and  that  to  this  object  he  sacrificed  the 
interests  of  the  late  continental  army. 

"It  is  imagined  that  the  Convention  will  form  the  out- 
line of  some  general  plan,  which  they  will  submit  to  Con- 
gress for  their  approbation,  and  that  of  the  States,  and 
then  adjourn. 


AT    THE    DAWl^    OF   FEDERAL    EXISTENCE  49 

"Some  gentlemen  are  so  convinced  of  the  necessity  of 
having  an  Upper  House,  as  well  as  a  Sovereign,  that  they 
intend  the  proposing  to  raise  all  the  members  who  formed 
the  Congress  of  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  to  this  dignity  and  even  to  make  it  hereditary. 

"The  general  triennial  meeting  of  the  Cincinnati  and 
a  meeting  of  the  American  Episcopal  clergymen  will  be 
held  in  Philadelphia  at  the  same  time  with  the  Convention ; 
the  Congress  remaining  in  New  York." 

G.  T.  Curtis,  mentioning  the  whisperings  about  calling 
over  the  Duke  of  York,  said  that  he  "was  not  aware  that 
this  ever  became  known  in  England."^  The  foregoing  dis- 
patch proves  that  it  was  known.  Although  research  has 
uncovered  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  project  came  to  the 
ear  of  the  Duke  of  York,  who  was  in  Prussia  from  1781 — 
August  1, 1787,^  the  matter  may  have  been  discussed  in  the 
Cabinet,  if  we  may  read  behind  the  following  lines  of 
Sydney  to  Dorchester: 

"The  report  of  an  intention  on  the  part  of  America  to 
apply  for  a  sovereign  of  the  House  of  Hanover  has  been 
circulated  here;  and  should  an  application  of  that  nature 
be  made,  it  will  require  a  very  nice  consideration  in  what 
manner  so  important  a  subject  should  be  treated.  But 
whatever  ideas  may  have  been  formed  upon  it,  it  will  upon 
all  accounts  be  advisable  that  any  influence  which  your 
Lordship  may  possess  should  be  exerted  to  discourage  the 
strengthening  of  the  alliance  with  the  House  of  Bourbon, 
which  must  naturally  follow,  were  a  Sovereign  to  be  chosen 
from  any  branch  of  that  family.'" 

So  at  the  dawn  of  federal  existence  the  phantom  of  some 
reunion  with  the  mother  country  was  still  entertained  by 
sanguine  Britishers.  Allaire,  in  his  "Occurences"  of  May 
3rd,  a  few  days  before  the  Federal  Convention  was  due  to 
convene,  said  in  underscored  words,  "your  interests  con- 

lOp.  at..  Vol.  I,  624. 

2Dict.  Nat.  Bio.,  XX,  244. 

8C.  O.  Papers,  Can.,  Class  42,  Vol.  LI. 


50  AT    THE   DAWN    OF   FEDERAL   EXISTENCE 

sists  in  disuniting  them  .  .  .  and  keeping  the  people  of 
the  Northern  States  in  a  continual  ferment.  .  .  .  You  will 
have  them  in  the  position  of  Ireland  soon."  Temple  was 
uncertain  "when  or  whether  ever,  a  Congress  will  sit  again 
under  the  present  flimsey  government  of  this  distracted 
country."^  He,  Bond,  and  Allaire  as  well  as  the  English 
press,  dwelt  on  the  significance  of  Rhode  Island's  declina- 
tion to  send  delegates  to  the  Convention^  intended  to  extend 
the  federal  powers,  "a  matter  of  great  doubt  and  involved 
in  much  perplexity."^  "Various  are  the  opinions  about 
this  same  Convention.  Many  think  there  will  be  great 
discord  and  the  Convention  break  up  without  doing  any- 
thing and  in  consequence  thereof  two  or  three  separate 
Congresses  for  the  government  of  these  States  be  estab- 
lished."^ 

And  various  were  the  opinions  and  reports  about  its 
doings  retailed  for  English  consumption.  Franklin  and 
Washington  were  supposed  to  have  had  a  violent  contest 
for  the  Presidency,  the  North  siding  with  Franklin,  the 
South  with  Washington,  who  won  by  a  vote — another  in- 
dication of  faction  in  the  new  land.^  It  was  gravely  an- 
nounced "that  the  Federal  Convention,  finding  how  dif- 
ficult it  will  be  to  pay  off  the  national  debt  to  foreigners 
within  the  time  stipulated  have  "Resolved,  That  it  be 
recommended  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  set 
up  the  whole  State  of  Rhode  Island  for  sale  to  the  highest 
bidder  or  bidders."  A  Georgian,  having  estimated  the 
worth  of  his  plantations  "and  presuming  them  to  be  con- 
siderably superior  to  the  real  value  of  the  State  of  Rhode 
Island,  has  already  transmitted  to  Congress  his  proposals 
for  purchasing  it."^ 

The  principal  object  of  the  Convention  now  sitting  is  "to 

iTo  Car.,  4  January,  F.  O.  Eecs.  Amer.,  Ser.  I,  Vol.  V. 
2T.  to  Car.,  7  June ;  B.  to  Car.,  2  July ;  "Occurrences,"  3  May,  Ibid. 
SBond  to  Fraser,  4  February,  Ibid. 
4T.  to  Car.,  5  April,  Ibid. 

^Oen.  Ev.  Post,  2  August ;  Bristol  Journal,  4  August ;  Pub.  Advertiser, 
13  September. 
«Jfom.  Chronicle,  10  November. 


AT    THE   DAWN    OF   FEDERAL    EXISTENCE  51 

form  a  federal  constitution  .  .  .  either  by  a  revision  of 
the  present  Articles  of  Confederation  or  by  adopting  others 
entirely  new,"  wrote  Temple,  as  he  expressed  regret  about 
the  secret  sessions.^  Allaire  insisted  that  nothing  would 
come  of  the  meeting.^  The  progress  of  the  Convention,  its 
tardy  opening  and  its  adjournments  were  duly  detailed.^  In 
the  newspapers  there  were  rumors  of  breakup  ;*  again,  that 
the  Convention  was  to  grant  power  to  Congress  to  lay 
imposts  for  21  years,  to  levy  a  poll  tax,  prohibit  slave 
importation  for  25  years,  raise  an  army  and  maintain  a 
navy,  and  "to  sit  as  General  Assembly  of  the  United  States 
for  six  months  in  each  year."^  The  press  complained  of 
secrecy,  too.^ 

The  time  when  the  United  States  delegates  were  reported 
to  be  busy  at  new  modeling  the  political  frame  work  would 
have  been  the  time  of  all  times,  it  seems,  for  our  friendly 
advisers  like  Pownall  and  Price  to  come  forward  with 
ready-made  schemes  of  government.^  Price  contented  him- 
self with  praising  the  principles  laid  down  in  John  Adam's 
"Defence  of  the  Constitutions  of  the  United  States  of 
America,"  lately  published  at  London,  and  exclaiming, 
"May  Heaven,  for  the  sake  of  mankind  give  them  wis- 
dom."^ The  Morning  Post  had  announced  that  Mrs. 
Macaulay  Graham  left  a  spick  and  span  code  during  her 
visit  to  America;®  but  the  only  plan  discoverable  comes 
from  the  pen  of  William  Macintosh  who  had  made  some 
ugly  forebodings  when  our  independence  was  granted^"  in 
his  "Travels  in  Europe,  Asia  and  Africa."  In  that  volume 
he  had  proffered  "Political  Advice  to  the  Dutch,"  "Re- 

17  June ;  Ditto,  Bond,  2  July. 

2"0ccurrences,"  July. 

SDispatches,  1  and  2  August. 

^Bristol  Journal,  22  September. 

5Morti.  Chronicle,  10  November. 

^Whitehall  Ev.  Post,  22  September. 

7In  fact  Rush  requested  Price  to  send  advice.  He  declined  because 
of  ill  health.  Price  Letters,  25  May  and  27  October,  1787,  Proc.  Mass. 
Hist.  Soc,  2nd  Ser.,  XVII,  262-382. 

8To  Lee,  Life  of  Arthur  Lee,  II,  351. 

97  June,  1785. 
iOAn*e,  18. 


52  AT    THE    DAWN    OF    FEDERAL    EXISTENCE 

flections  Suggested  to  Spain,"  "How  to  Govern  Hindus- 
tan," "A  Plan  for  New-Modeling  the  Government  of  Cal- 
cutta." The  opportunity  opened  by  the  proceedings  in  the 
United  States  was  too  good  to  miss,  and  on  August  20, 
1787,  Macintosh  mailed  from  Avignon  a  lengthy  letter  to 
the  "Hon.,  His  Excellency  General  Washington,  America." 

Macintosh  is  something  of  a  puzzle.  It  was  said  that  he 
did  not  exist.^  But  a  Captain  Joseph  Price  testifies,  "Mr. 
Macintosh,  being  the  son  of  a  Scottish  planter,  by  a  French 
Creole,  on  one  of  the  West  India  islands,  is  as  swarthy  and 
ill  looking  a  man  as  is  to  be  seen  on  the  Portugueze  walk 
in  the  Royal  Exchange.  He  lives  in  a  grocer's  shop  in 
Queen  Anne's  street,  East."^  The  mystery  arose  from 
Macintosh's  connction  with  Francis  and  his  attacks  on 
Warren  Hastings.  Some  thought  "Macintosh"  merely  a 
pen-name  of  Sir  Philip.  It  is  clear  that  the  man  was  vain, 
mediocre,  and  in  Francis's  pay.^ 

His  hot-house  constitution  was  designed,  he  says,  "to 
legislate,  administer  and  execute  without  democracy, 
aristocracy  or  monarchy."^  A  perfect  republic  was  im- 
possible because  of  "extent  of  territory."  He  recommended 
a  President,  to  be  addressed  "His  Highness,"  a  Senate,  to 
be  addressed  "Most  Noble,  and  the  title  Patrician  descend- 
ible," and  "Commoners,"  to  be  called  "Esquires."  The 
Commoners  were  to  be  selected  by  the  Christian  males  over 
twenty-five,  owning  substantial  property,  and  were  to 
represent  "Provinces,  Cities  and  Towns."  From  their  own 
body  the  Commoners  were  to  elect  one-fifth  to  sit  as  a 
Senate.  The  Senate  was  to  select  one  of  their  members 
the  ''Supreme"  for  a  term  of  five  years.  "And  the  terri- 
torial property  of  the  Supreme  shall  be  so  considerable 
as  to  contribute  to  raise  his  mind  superior  to  mercenary 
views." 

The  Supreme  was  charged  with  giving  his  assent  to 

iMemoirs  of  Philip  Francis  (1867),  II,  215. 

^8ome  Observations  .  .  .  on  Travels  in  Etirope,  Asia  and,  Africa,  1782. 
SLetter  and  "Plan  of  Government"  in  Doc.  Hist,  of  the  Con.;  Bull,  of 
Rolls  and  Lib.,  No.  11,  Pt.  I,  256-64. 


AT    THE    DAWN    OF   FEDERAL   EXISTENCE  53 

statutes,  the  appointment  of  all  officers  subject  to  removal 
upon  addresses  of  the  Houses,  the  summoning  and  pro- 
roguing of  parliament,  and  the  pardoning  of  crime,  except 
treason. 

Our  English  Sieyes  neglects  to  make  provision  for  a 
judicial  branch  and,  although  he  harps  on  the  great  dignity 
the  Senate  should  possess,  says  nothing  of  its  powers,  ex- 
cept that  the  acts  of  the  two  Houses  shall  be  obeyed 
throughout  the  States  as  well  as  the  ordinances  of  the 
"Standing  Council  of  State,"  an  imitation  of  the  Privy 
Council,  which  he  annexes  to  the  Executive  arm.  Mac- 
intosh would  have  luxury  restrained  by  sumptuary  laws, 
taxes  apportioned  to  population  and  production,  freedom  of 
conscience  and  religion,  trial  by  jury  and  no  amending  of 
laws — repeal  the  old  ones  and  enact  entirely  new  statutes.^ 

Before  the  outline  reached  Washington,  the  Convention 
was  over  and  the  fruits  of  its  labors  published  to  the 
world.  Price  wrote,  "I  am  waiting  with  impatience  for 
an  account."^ 

iWashington  acknowledged  this  plan,  without  criticism,  and  enclosed 
the  Constitution  actually  adopted.  Doc.  Hist,  of  Con.,  Ibid,  265.  If 
Macintosh  contributed  nothing  to  the  inspiration  of  the  delegates, 
one  Englishman  did.  Thomas  Jordan  sent  Franklin  a  cask  of  porter. 
Franklin  broached  it  at  a  dinner  he  gave  the  members.  The  contents 
"met  with  cordial  reception  and  universal  approbation."  Franklin, 
Works,  IX,  386. 

2To  Franklin,  Works,  VIII,  411,  26  September,  1787. 


CHAPTEK  IV. 

The  Reception  of  the  Constitution. 

There  is  an  antiquarian  interest  in  knowing  how  and 
when  the  Constitution  which  prevented  the  dire  happen- 
ings foretold  by  our  former  masters  reached  English  soil. 
P.  Allaire  was  the  first  of  the  British  agents  to  send  a  copy 
to  the  Ministry  "by  the  ship  Peggy,  Captain  Wallace," 
September  18th,  the  day  following  its  publication.  Bond 
sent  an  imprint  September  20th  and  another  September 
29th.  Temple  forwarded  two  copies  October  3d,  and  dupli- 
cates on  November  7th,  while  George  Miller,  Consul  at 
Charleston,  mailed  one  on  November  17th.^ 

The  ship  "Peggy"  bore  copies  for  the  English  press.  On 
Tuesday,  October  30th,  and  Wednesday,  October  31st,  the 
proposed  document  appeared  in  the  Morning  Chronicle, 
on  October  30th  and  November  1st  in  the  London  Chronicle 
and  in  the  General  Evening  Post,  on  October  31st  and 
November  1st  in  the  Public  Advertiser  and  on  October  31st, 
November  1st  and  2d  in  the  World.  The  Universal  Maga- 
zine ran  it  in  November,  the  Scots  Magazine,  in  December, 
the  Qentlemans  Magazine,  through  both  months.  It  ap- 
peared in  the  Annual  Register  for  1787  and  Debrett  pub- 
lished in  pamphlet  form  on  November  7th  a  "Plan  of  the 
New  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America"  which 
was  later  several  times  reprinted.^    Of  constitutional  dis- 

iThe  copies  are  preserved  in  F.  O.  Kecs..  Amer.,  Ser.  I,  "Vol.  V. 

2The  Constitution  also  appeared  in  W.  Gordon's  History  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  1788,  IV,  422-45 ;  the  preface  to  McKean  and 
Wilson's  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,  1792;  English  translation 
of  LaCroix's  Review  of  the  Constitution  of  Europe  and  the  United 
States  of  America,  1792,  I,  475-500 ;  London  edition  of  Morse's  Ameri- 
ca/n  Geography,  1792,  70-92 ;  a  pamphlet  printed  by  D.  I.  Eaton,  1794 ; 
T.  Cooper's,  Some  Information  Concerning  America,  1794 ;  The  Patriot's 
Calendar,  1795 ;  W.  Winterbotham's  An  Historical  View  .  .  .  of  the 
United  States,  1795,  I,  210-224. 

55 


56  THE   RECEPTION    OF    THE    CONSTITUTION 

cussions,  remarks  by  Franklin  and  Rush  were  frequently 
printed,  and  McKean  and  Wilson's  "Commentaries  on  the 
Constitution"  was  republished  in  London.  It  is  odd  to 
observe  that  the  Federalist  papers  passed  unnoticed  and 
that  no  edition  of  the  collection  was  published  in  England 
until  1894. 

English  opinion  was  sensible  to  the  importance  of  our 
federal  charter;  it  was  greeted  with  considerable  commen- 
dation and  some  carping.  "We  do  not  know  a  subject 
more  calculated  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  world,"^ 
"this  is  a  new  epocha  from  which  we  may  date  the  exist- 
ence of  the  United  States,"^  said  the  press.  Bond  thought 
the  Constitution  "in  probably  the  best  shape  in  which  it 
could  have  been  handed  forth  to  the  people — a  system  of 
government  whose  energy  may  correct  the  present  relaxed 
situation  of  the  laws  and  restore  public  faith  and  private 
credit."^  Miller  rejoices  because  "it  promises  to  rescue 
Congress  .  .  .  and  to  grant  sufficient  powers  to  comply  with 
and  enforce  their  treaties.''^  Temple  criticised  the  extended 
prerogative  entrusted  to  "the  President  General  of  the 
Congress  .  .  .  Washington  will  undoubtedly  be  first  elected 
to  that  high  station.  But  should  there  be  elected  at  any 
time  hereafter  an  aspiring  able  man,  the  patronage  and 
influence  such  a  station  would  aford  (sic)  would  be  very 
great  indeed!"^ 

At  Court,  it  was  spoken  of  as  an  admirable  form  of 
government  which  "if  adopted,  will  place  the  American 
character  in  a  new  point  of  view  highly  deserving  respect.* 
Lord  Carmarthen  said  to  our  Minister,  "I  presume,  Mr. 
Adams,  that  the  states  will  all  immediately  adopt  the  new 
constitution.  I  have  read  it  with  pleasure;  it  is  very  well 
drawn    up."^    With    significance,    he    simultaneously    ex- 

iMonthly  Rev.,  December,  1787. 

^Morn.  Chronicle,  14  November,  1787. 

3To  C,  20  September,  1787. 

4To.  C,  3  March,  1788. 

5To  C,  8  November,  1787. 

effCnox  to  Wash,,  25  May,  1788. 

TAdams  to  Jay,  14  February,  1788,  Works,  VIII,  475. 


TEE   RECEPTION    OF    THE    CONSTITUTION  57 

pressed  a  wish  that  a  commercial  treaty  existed  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain.^ 

Most  of  our  friends  in  England  highly  approved  of  the 
Constitution.^  Dr.  Price  wrote  in  delight  to  Franklin^ 
and  to  Lee.^  The  separation  of  church  and  state  was 
especially  welcome.^  Granville  Sharp  liked  everything  but 
the  slavery  article.  Alexander  Small  worried  because 
"your  territory  is  too  extensive  for  a  popular  government."* 
Some  of  the  ultra-radicals  whom  Joel  Barlow  met,  thought 
liberty  was  insufficiently  recognized.^  The  unfailing 
Macintosh  wrote  Washington  proffering  further  advice, 
and  remarking,  "It  is  flattering  to  me,  Sir,  on  comparing 
the  paper  which  you  were  pleased  to  transmit  with  mine 
to  perceive  so  striking  a  resemblance  in  their  outlines  and 
features."® 

On  the  whole  the  English  press  received  the  written  Con- 
stitution with  respect,  if  for  no  other  reason,  "because  it 
bore  a  great  likeness  to  the  unwritten  Constitution  of  Eng- 
land. The  Americans  are  desirous  to  preserve  a  repub- 
lican government,  yet  in  some  measure  similar  to  our  own," 
said  the  Bristol  Journal.'^  But  occasionally  there  was  an 
adverse  word:  "The  plan  of  the  American  government  is 
want  of  firmness."^  "No  provision  for  the  liberty  of  the 
press,"  says  the  Morning  Chronicle,^  noting  later  that 
amendments  were  being  proposed.^**  The  Bath  Chronicle 
was  inclined  to  ridicule,  and  the  Political  Magazine  thought 
that  America  would  be  "for  a  century,  at  least  distracted 
with  civil  commotions."  It  was  a  first  essay  and  an 
experiment.^^ 

lAdams  to  Jay,  14  February,  1788,  Works,  VTII,  475. 

22December,  1788,  Franklin,  Works,  IX,  42. 

324  March,  1788;  Life  of  Arthur  Lee,  II,  352. 

42  January,  1788 ;  Franklin,  Works,  IX,  452. 

SBarlow,  Life  mid  Letters,  84. 

6Doc.  Hist,  of  the  Con.,  Pt.  I,  699.  717  November,  1788. 

^Bristol  Journal,  2  November,  1787. 

916  November,  1787. 

1014  January,  1788. 

1113  November,  1788. 

i«July,  1788. 


58  THE   RECEPTION    OF    THE    CONSTITUTION 

The  belief  that  the  experiment  might  not  endure  was  also 
expressed  by  one  on  the  ground  in  some  of  the  "Observa- 
tions" sent  through  Dorchester  to  Lord  Sydney,  appar- 
ently from  the  same  hand  that  penned  the  memorandum 
about  American  hankerings  after  monarchy  in  the  Spring 
of  1787.^'  He  names  "Colonel  Hamilton"  as  one  who 
brought  forward  a  plan  in  the  Convention  "that  had  in 
view  the  establishment  of  a  monarchy  and  the  placing  of 
a  crown  upon  the  head  of  a  foreign  Prince,  which  was 
overruled,  although  supported  by  some  of  the  ablest  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention."  These  members,  he  asserts,  re- 
garded the  Constitution  "as  an  experiment  paving  the  way 
for  a  more  energetic  one  .  .  .  and  consider  the  present 
short  lived  appointment  of  the  President  as  a  poor  object 
for  ambition." 

"Amongst  the  number  of  objections  to  the  new  system 
raised  by  the  advocates  for  a  monarchy,  the  constant 
struggle  for  power  which  in  the  nature  of  things  must  take 
place  between  the  general  or  national  and  State  govern- 
ments are  not  the  least  important.  .  .  . 

"Many  wealthy  individuals  have  taken  a  decided  part  in 
favor  of  the  new  plan  from  the  hope  that  the  domestic 
debt  of  the  union  may  be  funded  and  that  the  various  paper 
securities,  of  which  they  are  holders  to  a  great  amount, 
purchased  for  a  trifle,  may  rise  to  their  full  value.  .  .  . 

"Nothing  can  well  exceed  the  disordered  condition  of 
their  finances.  .  .  ."^ 

Allaire  announced  a  civil  war  within  three  years  "at 
farthest"^  as  he  told  of  the  faction  engendered  over  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution.  English  newspaper  and 
magazine  kept  pace  with  the  ratification  of  the  instrument, 
detailing  the  party  contests  in  each  State,  stressing  the 
attitude  of  Rhode  Island  and  North  Carolina;  while  the 
Consuls  sent  similar  data  to  the  Ministry.     "The  States 

lAnte,  46-49. 

214  October,  1788,  C.  O.  Papers,  Canada,  Class  42,  Vol  LXI. 

35  October,  1787,  F.  O.  Eecs.,  Amer.  Ser.  I,  Vol.  V. 


THE   RECEPTION    OF    THE    CONSTITUTION  59 

continue  in  great  party  heats,"  wrote  Temple/  "which 
leaves  it  a  matter  still  of  doubt  whether  the  said  Constitu- 
tion will  ever  take  place  to  any  purpose,  if  at  all,  in  this 
distracted  country." 

Three  months  later  England  received  word  that  New 
Hampshire,  the  ninth  State,  had  ratified  the  Constitution 
and  that  Congress  was  wrangling  about  the  place  of  meet- 
ing for  the  new  government.  The  long  line  of  march  of 
"The  Grand  Foederal  Procession  at  Philadelphia"  in  cele- 
bration of  the  formation  of  the  more  perfect  union  took 
columns  of  the  Morning  Post  from  August  28th-September 
11th,  1788,  and  was  a  space  filler  for  five  installments  of 
the  Gentleman^ s  Magazine  (August-December).  Washing- 
ton, whose  election  as  "Dictator  for  4  years"  was  reported 
so  early  as  November  30th,  1787^  was  hailed  as  head  of  the 
"rising  Empire"^ — perhaps,  added  the  Monthly  Review 
with  a  touch  of  the  ebbing  English  spleen,  "perhaps  Dic- 
tator for  life."* 

13  April,  1788,  F.  O.  Eecs.,  Amer.  Ser.  I,  Vol.  VI. 

2P«6,  Advertiser. 

SLon.  Chronicle,  23  April,  1789. 

4July,  1789. 


PART  II 

AFTER  THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


INTRODUCTORY. 

When  President  Washington  nervously  faced  Congress 
and  delivered  his  first  inaugural  address  he  included  in 
that  bundle  of  precepts  this  sentence  of  inspiration,  "The 
preservation  of  the  sacred  fire  of  liberty,  and  the  destiny 
of  the  Republican  model  of  government  are  justly  con- 
sidered as  deeply,  perhaps  as  finally,  staked  on  the  experi- 
ment intrusted  to  the  hands  of  the  American  people."^ 
How  English  opinion  regarded  this  experiment,  its  suc- 
cess, its  probable  endurance,  its  utility  as  an  example,  how 
their  views  of  American  polity  were  changed  after  con- 
stitutional government  was  put  in  operation,  to  what  ex- 
tent Englishmen  thought  liberty  really  was  preserved  in 
America,  and  what  were  their  specific  criticisms  of  our 
constitution,  is  thp  business  of  the  remainder  of  these 
pages  to  point  out. 

No  longer  must  we  quote  croakings  about  anarchy  and 
distress.  The  establishment  of  the  Federal  Government 
almost  immediately  created  respect.  "Public  order  and 
industrial  enterprise  hath  been  brought  about  in  shorter 
time  than  was  ever  before  known  in  any  country,"  wrote 
Temple  five  months  after  Washington's  inauguration.^  The 
press  reported  that  "we  have  good  grounds  to  think  a  few 
years  will  restore  public  credit  and  national  reputation  ;"^ 
"the  trade  and  agriculture  of  the  United  States  were  never 
in  such  a  flourishing  condition;"*  "no  part  of  the  world 
affords  at  this  time  a  more  pleasing  prospect  than  the 

iState  Papers  (Wait),  I,  11. 

2T.  to  C,  10  October,  1789,  F.  O.  Eecs.,  Vol.  VII. 

sPub.  Advertiser,  8  October.  1789. 

iPol.  Magazine,  March,  1790. 

63 


64  INTRODUCTORY 

United  States  of  America."^  Bond  wrote  to  Philip  Yorke: 
"Things  have  taken  a  very  favorable  turn  in  this  govern- 
ment and  the  prospect  brightens  up  all — much  has  been 
done  though  something  is  still  left  to  be  done."^  Gouver- 
neur  Morris,  our  agent  in  London,  wrote  to  Jefferson,  "the 
reputation  of  the  United  States  rises  fast."^  Major  Beck- 
with,  the  Cabinet's  agent  in  New  York,  reported  to  Gren- 
ville  a  year  later: 

"This  country,  my  Lord,  is  now  beginning  to  feel  its  own 
importance;  the  confederation  of  Vermont  and  Kentucky, 
the  produce  of  the  import  and  tonnage  duties,  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  National  Bank,  the  having  carried  an  excise, 
the  early  prospect  of  a  mint,  the  great  increase  in  popu- 
lation, a  coasting  trade  of  magnitude  hitherto  unthought 
of,  the  amount  of  annual  exports,  and  other  favorable 
circumstances  excite  the  ideas  of  an  active  people."* 

Bond  and  Temple  announce  with  astonishment  the  rise 
in  public  securities,  "and  they  are  still  rising  !"^  In  London 
itself  there  was  speculation  in  the  American  funds.  The 
Star  ran  advertisements  of  several  thousand  United  States 
government  securities  in  the  market,  20,000  acres  on  the 
Ohio  to  be  auctioned,  and  lots  in  the  coming  city  of  Wash- 
ington for  sale.^  English  opinion  in  this  period  veers 
around  from  the  attitude  tliat  America  is  virtually  hope- 
less to  a  state  of  more  balanced  inquiry  into  the  principles 
and  characteristics  of  our  form  of  government. 

For  gauging  the  new  opinion  and  getting  at  the  criticism 
from  1789-1798,  we  have  several  testing  media  besides  the 
newspapers,  magazines,  diplomatic  correspondence,  parlia- 
mentary debates,  memoirs  and  travelers'  tales  upon  which 
we  have  so  largely  depended  until  the  present.  We  now 
get  some  analysis  of  the  nature  of  the  government  by 

TiThe  Bee,  26  October,  1791. 

2Hardwicke  Mss.,  British  Museum,  16  April,  1791. 
sSpark's  Morris,  IT,  52. 
43  March,  1791,  F.  O.  Recs.,  Vol.  XII. 

5T.  to  C,  6  January,  1790;  B.  to  C,  5  January,  1791;  F.  O.  Recs., 
Vols.  XI  anrl  XII. 

829  November,  4  December,  1792. 


INTRODUCTORY  65 

students  of  politics  and  some  discussion  in  histories  of  the 
United  States  compiled  by  English  hands,  but  chief  of  all, 
the  American  experiment  enters  into  the  field  of  contro- 
versial literature.  It  swells  the  flood  of  fugitive  pamphlets 
which  inundated  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth  century 
and  treated  of  everything  from  the  building  of  pig-styes 
to  the  structure  of  church  and  state.  Writers  range  them- 
selves on  one  side  or  the  other  in  the  remarkable  out- 
flowering  of  political  disputation  which  marks  this  period, 
flying  the  standard  of  radical  or  conservative,  as  the  case 
may  be.  The  United  States  is  an  armory  from  which  both 
sides  frequently  draw  their  weapons. 

There  were  four  leading  occasions  in  this  pamphlet  war- 
fare when  this  country  came  into  constant  reference :  The 
controversy  begotten  by  Burke's  "Reflections  on  the  French 
Eevolution,"  which  opened  up  the  whole  question  of  the 
right  of  revolt  and  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves ;  the 
scurrilous  row  started  by  Paine's  "Rights  of  Man,"  in  fact 
a  part  of  the  Burke  controversy,  but  initiating  so  many 
separate  discussions  about  written  constitutions,  govern- 
ment by  compact,  and  the  rest,  that  it  deserves  to  stand 
by  itself;  the  war  with  France,  which  forced  into  the  lime- 
light a  comparison  of  republicanism  in  Europe  and  repub- 
licanism in  America;  the  radical  movement  toward  a  re- 
formed parliamentary  representation,  abolition  of  test 
oaths,  and  a  wider  suffrage,  which  naturally  pointed  to  the 
United  States  as  a  shining  instance  of  a  country  that 
enjoyed  these  blessings,  if  not  in  full,  at  least  to  a  greater 
extent  than  England,  and  seemingly  without  an  immediate 
collapse  of  society.  All  these  occasions  really  reduce 
themselves  to  the  last — the  battle  of  radicalism,  which 
raised  its  head  with  John  Wilkes  in  1769^  and  fought  the 
good  fight  on  Toryism  until  Government  put  a  stop  to  its 
overt  activity  with  the  treason  trials  of  1794-1796. 

It  is  interesting  to  segregate  and  compare  the  radical 
view    of    American    institutions    with    the    conservative 

iLecky,  History  of  England  m  the  Eighteenth  Century,  III,  174. 


66  INTRODUCTORY 

opinion.  We  shall  find  that  America's  chief  effect  on  Eng- 
lish thought  during  this  period  was  its  influence  on  the 
radicals  as  an  inspiration  and  an  example,  on  the  con- 
servatives as  an  incentive  to  a  deep  searching  of  their 
tlieories  and  to  the  discovering  of  new  modes  of  defending  a 
thesis  to  which  the  American  experiment  offered  a  chal- 
lenge.   Priestley  expressed  the  general  radical  praise: 

"The  Americans  ventured  to  do  a  great  deal  more  than 
our  ancestors  at  the  revolution  and  set  a  glorious  example 
to  France  and  the  whole  world. 

"They  formed  a  completely  new  government  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  equal  liberty  and  the  rights  of  men  (as  Dr.  Price 
expressly  and  happily  said)  'without  NOBLES,  without 
BISHOPS  and  without  A  KING,'  "^ 

A  challenge  such  as  this,  smug  conservatism  had  to  meet, 
and  we  shall  later  see  that  it  found  several  ways  of  meeting 
it. 

^Extracts  from  Dr.  Priestley's  Works,  1792,  10. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Views  op  the  Radicals. 

Viscount  Morley^  in  his  life  of  Burke  written  fifty  years 
since,  remarks  that  the  publication  of  "Reflections  on  the 
French  Revolution"  forthwith  divided  England  into  two 
camps.  ^  Walter  Phelps  Hall  notes  that  there  were  thirty- 
eight  replies.^  But  as  the  replies  called  forth  rebuttals  and 
counter  rebuttals,  and  as  one  of  them  was  composed  by 
Paine,  which  in  its  turn  aroused  a  host  of  pamphlets,  it 
may  be  said  that  hundreds  of  publications  were  the  con- 
sequence of  Burke's  gauge  thrown  down  to  the  Radicals. 
His  book  is  the  Bible  of  the  period's  Conservatism,  as  in- 
deed its  philosophy  is  the  ground  work  for  conservative 
thought  ever  since. 

There  were  rival  camps  before  Burke.  He  merely 
brought  them  into  greater  prominence  and  increased  the 
enrollment  in  each.  The  genesis  of  radicalism  was  due  to 
the  demands  for  parliamentary  reform,  which  started  their 
course  twenty  years  before.  Gross  inequality  in  repre- 
sentation, long  parliaments,  too  much  interference  of  the 
Crown  in  elections,  and  over-limited  suffrage  were  all  made 
subjects  of  complaint.  The  American  war,  fought  in  part 
because  of  non-representation  and  Crown  domination,  gave 
the  movement  a  great  impetus.  It  extended  itself  into  an 
appeal  for  religious  toleration,  a  free  press,  free  platform, 
free  right  of  petition.  Some  of  its  more  uncompromising 
adherents  wanted  the  ballot,  universal  suffrage,  abolition 

^Edmund  Burke  (E.  M.  L.),  1867,  162. 

^British  Radicalism,  1791-97,  W.  P.  Hall,  1912,  57. 

67 


68  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS 

of  primogeniture,  and  ventured  to  suggest  the  uselessness 
of  aristocrats  to  society — a  proposition  whicli  gave  no  joy 
to  Burke  or  to  the  Court. 

Obviously  such  an  agitation  would  lead  to  an  examina- 
tion of  the  fundamentals  of  the  state  and  of  the  source 
of  government.  Did  government  spring  from  those  below 
or  was  it  handed  down  from  above?  Was  it  run  in  the 
interest  of  the  governed  or  the  governors?  We  find  the 
radical  movement  going  through  this  stage  with  Price 
and  Priestley  at  the  moment  the  French  Revolution  broke 
out.  Their  conclusion,  as  indeed  the  logic  of  their  prin- 
ciples made  inevitable,  was  that  the  people  should  rule. 
The  Society  for  Commemorating  the  Revolution  of  1688 
set  forth  their  basic  tenets  at  one  of  its  annual  meetings : 

I.  That  all  civil  and  political  authority  is  derived  from 
the  people. 

II.  That  the  abuse  of  power  justifies  resistance. 

III.  That  the  right  of  private  judgment,  liberty  of 
conscience,  trial  by  jury,  freedom  of  the  press  and  the  free- 
dom of  election  are  ever  to  be  held  sacred  and  inviolable. 

It  was  in  a  sermon  before  this  Society  that  Price  laid 
down  the  resultant  three  rights  possessed  by  free  men : 

I.  To  choose  our  own  governors. 

II.  To  cashier  them  for  misconduct. 

III.  To  frame  a  government  for  ourselves.^ 

These  propositions,  enunciated  while  the  King  of  France 
was  in  the  thrall  of  his  people,  aroused  Burke's  ire  and 
brought  his  famous  attack.  The  Radicals  accepted  the 
precepts  and  in  consequence  sympathized  greatly  with  the 
happenings  across  the  Channel.  As  in  America  at  the 
time,  there  were  two  parties,  Jacobins  and  Anti-Jacobins. 
The  Court,  at  first  a  little  pleased  at  the  straits  of  their 
cousin  in  France,  and  then  a  little  worried  lest  the  habit 
of  deposing  Kings  should  spread,  paid  little  heed  to  the 
movement  until  Louis  lost  his  head.    This  was  too  much ; 

lA  Discourse  on  Love  of  Country,  1789. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE    RADICALS  69 

and  concerted  steps  were  begun  to  crush  out  the  Jacobin 
tendency  at  home. 

Even  now  the  Court  might  have  disregarded  the  move- 
ment, had  it  not  spread  to  the  lower  classes.  Price, 
Priestley  and  Godwin,  Wyvill,  Richmond,  Jebb,  Cart- 
wright  and  Mackintosh  might  speak,  write  or  preach 
about  doctrinaire  ideas,  but  they  really  reached  only  the 
directing  class,  which  on  the  whole,  the  administration 
regarded  as  "safe."  But  when  the  movement  of  protest 
against  the  established  order  was  taken  up  by  the  lecturer 
Thelwall,  "the  Tribune  of  the  people,"  by  Thomas  Hardy, 
a  shoemaker,  who  organized  popular  gatherings  on  the 
outskirts  of  London,  the  pamphleteer  Paine,  whose  simple 
phrases  were  understanded  of  even  the  lowest,  and  by 
plebians  like  Joseph  Gerrald,  Margarot,  Skirving,  and 
"Citizen"  Eaton,  the  administration  thought  it  time  to  act. 

There  was  a  rumor,  based  partly  on  circumstantial  evi- 
dence, partly  on  tales  circulated  by  the  Ministry,  that  the 
Jacobins  at  home  were  secretly  leagued  with  the  repub- 
licans in  France  for  the  purpose  of  overturning  English 
church,  king  and  state.  Especially  prominent  in  this 
movement,  it  was  asserted,  were  some  of  the  secret  societies. 
In  this  period  radicalism  had  begotten  foiu*  leading  or- 
ganizations, two  before  the  French  Revolution — the  Society 
for  Constitutional  Information,  aimed  to  spread  literature 
about  parliamentary  reform,  the  Society  for  Commemor- 
ating the  Revolution  of  1688,  which  discussed  principles  of 
government,  and  two  after  the  Revolution — the  Friends  of 
the  People,  merely  a  liberal  club  which  tried  to  keep  the 
subject  of  reform  before  the  public,  but  freed  of  French 
taint,  and  the  London  Corresponding  Society,  to  which 
anyone  might  belong  for  a  shilling. 

This  last  society  was  most  suspected.  It  ramified  through 
the  Kingdom.  There  were  branches  in  Edinburgh  and  in 
Belfast.  They  addressed  the  National  Assembly  in  France 
and  exchanged  rhetorical  felicitations  with  similar  organi- 
zations in  French  towns,  merely  benevolent  bombast  about 


70  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS 

liberty  and  humanity,  but  enough  for  Government  to  seize 
upon  and  suspect  as  treason/  One  toast  at  a  dinner  in 
the  Crown  and  Anchor  Tavern  in  1794  was,  "All  that  is 
good  in  every  constitution,  and  may  we  never  be  super- 
stitious enough  to  reverence  in  any  that  which  is  good  for 
nothing." 

The  climax  of  the  Societies'  activities,  which  spread  as 
far  as  they  did  because  of  existing  political  and  economic 
oppression  and  because  of  inspiration  from  the  example  of 
France,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  America,  was  a  British  con- 
vention of  delegates  from  about  fifty  local  Societies  that 
convened  at  Edinburgh  in  1793,  a  rather  distant  imitation 
of  the  Convention  in  France.  Dundas  and  the  Scottish 
authorities  dissolved  the  meeting  and  charged  the  leaders 
with  sedition.  One  committee  was  alleged  to  have  hatched 
this  conspiracy: 

I.  The  capture  of  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  Clerk,  and  all 
Government  oflScials  at  their  homes. 

II.  The  firing  of  the  excise  house  for  the  purpose  of 
ambuscading  the  military. 

III.  The  capture  of  the  castle  while  the  soldiers  were 
fighting  the  flames,  or  in  the  ambuscade. 

IV.  The  seizure  of  the  bank  with  its  contents. 

V.  An  order  to  be  given  to  all  farmers  of  the  neighbor- 
hood to  keep  their  food  supply  at  the  disposal  of  the  rioters. 

VI.  All  gentlemen  within  three  miles  to  be  commanded 
not  to  leave  their  homes  under  penalty  of  death. 

VII.  A  petition  to  be  sent  to  the  King  to  end  the 
French  war  or  take  the  consequences.^ 

The  leaders  of  the  British  Convention  were  exiled  to 
Botany  Bay  for  their  pains.  Systematic  steps  to  repress 
the  organizations  in  London  and  elsewhere  were  at  once 
taken,  and  Hardy,  Holcroft,  Thelwall,  Home  Tooke,  and 
Yorke  summoned  for  trial,  as  other  radicals  like  Winter- 
botham,   Callender,   Muir,   Palmer  and   Eaton  had  been 

iThe  Revolution  Society  did  likewise.     Its  correspondence  was  pub- 
lished in  1794.  2State  THals,  XXIV,  38. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS  71 

before.  The  "Two  Acts"  of  1794,  "The  Seditious  Meeting 
Bill,"  and  "An  Act  for  the  Safety  and  Preservation  of  His 
Majesty's  Person  and  Government  Against  Treasonable 
and  Seditious  Practices  and  Attempts,"  supplied  the  gov- 
ernment with  instruments  which  hounded  overt  popular 
radicalism  to  death,  for  the  duration  of  the  French  war 
at  least.  ^ 

It  is  customary  to  state  that  all  this  sound  and  fury 
signified  nothing,  that  the  radical  Societies  were  few  and 
their  membership  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the 
population  of  easy-going,  stand-pat  citizens.  Though  this 
is  doubtless  true,  the  fact  is  the  administration  feared  the 
movement  might  be  more  widespread  than  it  really  was. 
Known  governmental  antagonism  led  to  secrecy  on  the 
part  of  radical  societies  and  secrecy  begot  suspicion  of 
potential  magnitude;  the  safe  plan  was  to  stamp  them 
out.  In  doing  so  it  must  not  be  forgotten  also  that  the 
government  was  eliminating  political  foes.  But  Dundas  was 
really  alarmed  by  the  agitation.^  So  were  others  of  the 
ministry.  There  were  rumors  of  a  "pop-gun  plot,"  accusa- 
tions that  the  radicals  were  sending  a  gift  of  shoes  to  the 
French  army,  were  busy  gathering  up  pikes  in  country 
barns  whence  they  were  to  assail  smug  aristocracy.  The 
bulwarks  of  the  Tower  were  strengthened  and  the  guard 
at  the  Bank  reinforced.^  When  Pierre,  in  a  revival  of 
Venice  Preserved,  uttered  the  line,  "Cursed  be  your  senate, 
cursed  be  your  constitution,"  it  was  noted  with  anxiety 
that  the  audience  broke  into  wild  applause,  though  the 
trials  were  then  at  their  height.  So  intolerant  did  the 
government  become  of  any  radical  expression,  whether 
from  genuine  fear  or  ingenious  policy,  that  Fox  was 
stricken  from  the  Privy  Council  list  for  toasting  "The 

iFor  radicals :  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Secrecy  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  1799 ;  Proceedings  in  the  Case  of  High  Treason,  1794 ;  G.  S. 
Veitch,  The  Genesis  of  Parliamentary  Reform,  1913,  the  fullest  account; 
C.  B.  R.  Kent,  The  English  Radicals,  1899 ;  W.  P.  Hall,  British  Radical- 
ism,  1791-97,    1912. 

2The  Amiston  Papers,  G.  W.  T.  Omond,  1887. 

3Stanliope's  Pitt,  II,  179. 


72  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS 

Majesty  of  the  People,"  and  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  deposed 
from  the  Lord  Lieutenancy  of  West  Riding,  and  the  com- 
mand of  a  regiment,  for  a  somewhat  more  incendiary 
speech  at  Fox's  birthday  party  in  1798: 

"I  shall  only  recall  to  your  memory  that  not  twenty 
years  ago  the  illustrious  George  Washington  had  not  more 
than  two  thousand  men  to  rally  round  him  when  his 
country  was  attacked.  America  is  now  free.  This  day 
full  two  thousand  men  are  assembled  in  this  place :  I  leave 
to  you  to  make  the  application."^ 

Norfolk's  appeal  to  American  example  was  a  regular 
procedure  with  the  Liberals  of  the  day.  In  the  correspond- 
ence between  the  Radical  Societies  and  the  French  Clubs, 
the  union  of  America,  France  and  Great  Britain  in  an 
alliance  for  the  freedom  of  humanity  is  a  continual  theme. 
At  the  celebration  of  the  French  Revolution  at  Belfast  in 
1792  three  banners  were  borne  in  the  street  parade — those 
of  America,  France  and  Ireland.  England  was  left  out. 
Under  the  American  flag  was  the  motto  "The  Asylum  of 
Liberty,"  and  a  portrait  of  Franklin  with  the  inscription 
"Where  Liberty  is,  there  is  my  Country,"  A  banquet  toast 
ran  "Lasting  Freedom  and  Liberty  to  the  United  States 
of  America."^  Ireland  and  Scotland  invoked  America  as 
a  precedent  which,  if  they  were  not  to  follow,  proved  Eng- 
land must  make  concessions  in  parliamentary  representa- 
tion and  in  more  ample  self  rule. 

At  the  trials  the  following  passages  approving  America 
were  read  as  evidence  of  seditious  intent.  They  demonstrate 
that  the  American  example  was  only  second  to  France  in 
the  eyes  of  the  radicals : 

"We  ardently  wish  the  triple  alliance  (not  of  crowns 
but)  of  the  people  of  America,  France,  and  Great  Britain  to 
give  freedom  to  Europe  and  peace  to  the  whole  world." 

"The  luster  of  the  American  Republic,  like  an  effulgent 
morning,  arose  with  increasing  vigor,  but  still  too  distant 
to  enlighten  our  hemisphere  till  the  splendor  of  the  French 

ilbid,  III.  91.  2 Belfast  Politics,  1794. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS  73 

Revolution  burst  forth  upon  the  Continent  in  the  full 
fervor  of  a  morning  sun."^ 

Speaking  in  his  own  defence  Joseph  Gerrald  said  of 
universal  suffrage,  "fortunately  for  me,  gentlemen,  my 
experience  enables  me  to  give  a  flat  contradiction  to  the 
position  advanced.  I  myself  resided  during  four  years  in 
a  country  where  every  man  who  paid  taxes  had  a  right  to 
vote;  I  mean  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  I  was 
an  eye  witness  of  many  elections  which  took  place  in 
Philadelphia,  the  capital  of  the  state,  an  industrious  and 
populous  city,  and  can  safely  assert  that  no  riot  ever 
ensued.  For  in  truth,  gentlemen,  the  representative  had 
no  interest  distinct  fi-om  his  constituents:  the  office  whicli 
he  undertook  was  rather  a  burden  than  a  benefit,  and  as 
the  government  was  too  poor  to  purchase,  and  the  people 
too  virtuous  to  barter  away,  their  liberties,  even  if  the  case 
had  been  otherwise,  so  the  deputy,  though  he  had  every 
opportunity  to  serve,  had  no  temptation  to  sell  his  con- 
stituents. What  then  has  been  found  by  experience  to  be 
wholesome  for  Americans  can  never  prove  hurtful  or 
poisonous  to  Britons,  the  parent  stock  of  whom  Americans 
are  descended."^ 

Thus,  as  we  have  said,  America  was  regarded  as  an 
armory  from  which  radicalism  should  draw  its  weapons. 
What  precepts  of  the  radical  creed  she  was  expected  to 
demonstrate  were  itemized  in  an  answer  to  Burke's  Reflec- 
tions :  "America  may  satisfy  a  future  age  on  these  points — 

"Whether  a  country  whose  extent  is  greater  than  Europ*^ 
can  remain  united  and  free  under  a  representative  govern- 
ment? Whether  it  can  have  an  efficient  executive  power, 
and  a  permanent  constitution,  without  a  King,  without  a 
Court,  without  Nobles,  without  an  established  Religion? 
And  whether  the  cause  of  Christianity  can  be  supported 
without  the  assistance  of  the  Athanasian  creed  ?"^ 

iThe  Proceedings  in  the  Gases  of  High  Treason,  1794. 
^The  Trial  of  Joseph  Gerrald,  1794. 

sAn  Answer  to  the  Bt.  Hon.  Ed.  Burke's  Reflections,  by  an  Irish- 
man, 1791. 


74  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE    RADICALS 

In  his  reply  to  Burke,  Mackintosh  was  hopeful  that  the 
American  experiment  would  answer  the  question  in  the 
affirmative.  He  spoke  of  America's  tranquility  and  free- 
dom, affluence  and  credit,  and  said:  "The  authors  of  her 
constitution  have  constructed  a  great  permanent  experi- 
mental answer  to  the  sophistries  and  declamations  of  the 
detractors  of  liberty." 

Henry  Yorke,  who  addressed  "Thoughts  on  Civil  Govern- 
ment" to  the  citizens  of  Sheffield,^  was  more  emphatic : 

"If  the  few  govern  the  many,  the  interests  of  the  few 
will  be  alone  pursued;  but  if  the  many  govern  themselves, 
the  few  will  be  comprehended  in  it,  and  the  interests  of  the 
whole  will  be  constantly  followed.  The  sooner  therefore, 
the  people  claim  their  rights,  the  better  will  be  their  con- 
dition, and  happier  that  of  posterity.  To  this  truth  I  am 
ready  to  allege  the  evidence  of  America  which  does  flourish 
in  wealth  and  peace  without  either  Kings,  Bishops  or 
Nobles,  and  which  is  of  course  a  proof  that  other  countries 
can  do  the  same.  At  all  events  the  government  of  America 
is  conducted  on  a  cheaper  scale;  and  I  verily  believe  that 
the  people  of  the  country  are  happier  without  them.  .  .  . 
They  have  left  their  government  open  to  innovations,  not 
inimical  to  Truth,  Justice  and  Liberty.  Already  they  have 
three  times  revised  their  constitution,  and  never  were  either 
Kingcraft  or  Priestcraft  so  much  as  mentioned  by  one  of 
them.  They  have  lived  under  the  influence  of  both  and  they 
had  fought  and  bled  to  relinquish  them.  It  was  not  likely 
therefore  that  they  should  again  harbor  in  their  bosoms 
what  they  deemed  snakes,  and  what  they  had  magnamin- 
ously  rejected  as  a  pollution  and  abhorrence.  The  whole 
expense  of  their  Federal  Government,  founded  on  the  sys- 
tem of  representation  and  extending  over  a  country  ten 
times  as  large  as  England  is  but  £135,000  Sterling." 

In  this  quotation  Yorke  mentions  five  points  which  the 
radicals  held  America  to  prove — that  government  comes 
from  the  people,  who  should  control  at  all  times,  that  a 

11794. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS  75 

country  flourishes  with  popular  representation,  that  it  can 
get  on  without  a  directing  aristocracy,  and  that,  thus,  its 
people  are  happier  and  its  government  cheaper.  Other 
important  conclusions  deduced  by  the  radicals  were  that 
religious  toleration  and  separation  of  church  and  state 
is  desirable,  a  written  constitution  most  praiseworthy,  that 
rotation  in  office,  the  ballot  and  wide  suffrage  are  political 
desiderata.  They  considered  America  a  challenge  to  re- 
form, if  not  insurrection.  Kadical  opinion  thought  her 
most  happy  and  prophesied  a  glorious  future.  The  follow- 
ing tissue  of  quotations  corroborates  these  assertions. 

Major  Cartwright  was  the  prolific  radical  writer  who 
most  of  all  urged  American  precedent  to  prove  the  ad- 
vantages and  blessings  of  popular  suffrage  and  adequate 
representation,  of  a  written  constitution  and  of  a  ballot. 
He  glossed  over  the  fact  that  suffrage  was  widely  restricted 
and  the  ballot's  use  in  those  days  greatly  limited,  just  as 
he  over-stressed  the  existence  of  a  written  constitution. 

Paine  had  initiated  the  discussion  of  written  instruments 
when  he  defied  the  English  to  show  him  a  copy  of  their 
constitution,  and  asserted  that  since  no  copy  was  in  print, 
no  constitution  existed.  He  said  that  a  written  constitu- 
tion was  as  essential  to  politics  as  a  grammar  was  to 
language.  The  idea  was  seized  upon  by  radical  pamph- 
leteers and  publicists.  Benjamin  Heath  Malkin,  a  young 
Oxford  essayist,  shows  Paine's  influence  in  this  outburst. 
"The  constitution  of  which  the  English  were  so  enamored 
existed  only  in  their  own  imagination.  ...  At  what  time 
was  it  framed?  Was  it  ever  completed?  When  was  it 
ratified?  ...  It  is  clear  that  no  period  can  be  ascertained 
at  which  to  fix  the  era  of  the  constitution."^ 

In  "An  Appeal  on  the  Subject  of  the  English  Constitu- 
tion" Cartwright  said,  "Here  we  have  to  lament,  and  a 
subject  of  most  serious  lamentation  it  is,  that  we  have  not 
a  written  constitution,  to  which  all.  King,  Lords  and  people, 
ministers,  military  and  judges,  but  above  all,  to  which  our 

iSome  Essays  Connected  with  Civilization,  1795,  124. 


76  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS 

representatives  might  at  all  times  appeal.  ...  A  benefit 
resulting  from  the  possession  of  a  written  constitution  is 
so  obvious  that  I  need  scarcely  remind  my  reader  of  it: 
no  unconstitutional  law  of  consequence  can  get  upon  the 
statute  hook,  and  if  any  unimportant  one  should  creep  in, 
it  must  soon  be  detected  and  expunged."^ 

Another  benefit  in  Cartwright's  eyes  was  the  distinction 
between  laws  that  were  fundamental  and  those  statutes 
which  dealt  with  "old  rags,  kettles  and  frying  pans."  Still 
another  was  that  it  kept  in  mind  the  fact  that  government 
was  a  compact  of  the  people  who  came  together  and  de- 
termined what  their  form  of  rule  should  be  in  an  instru- 
ment "visible  and  tangible  .  .  .  committed  to  print  .  .  . 
something  of  which  we  are  not  possessed.  I  would  to  God 
we  were!"^  Cartwright  added  that  a  constitution  should 
be  taught  like  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

As  our  constitution  was  regarded  as  daily  testimony  to 
the  fact  that  the  American  people  were  the  source  of 
government,  so  their  participation  in  it  by  suffrage  and 
adequate  representation  were  the  causes  of  its  success. 
Said  Cartwright: 

"Does  any  man  in  any  country  where  reason  is  not  in 
chains — does  any  man  in  America — does  any  man  in 
France  .  .  .  conceive  any  other  idea  of  political  liberty 
than  that  it  has  no  other  cause  than  legislative  represen- 
tation ?"3 

"Here  let  me  ask  every  politician  if  any  nation,  in  any 
age,  ever  experienced  the  blessings  of  good  government  in 
so  eminent  a  degree  as  they  have  been  experienced  by 
Americans  since  their  change?"  inquired  Cartwright  again 
in  "The  Constitutional  Defence  of  England."*  "Can  any 
gentleman  present  point  out  in  the  whole  annals  of  the 
human  race  another  instance  of  an  equal  duration  of  such 
peace  and  felicity  as  America  has  already  enjoyed  under 

11796. 

^Letter  to  the  Duke  of  "Newcastle,  1792. 

tAn  Appeal  on  the  Subject  of  the  English  Constitution,  M.D.,  II. 

41796,  40. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS  77 

her  present  government?"  Then,  rebutting  a  contention  of 
the  Conservatives  which  we  shall  note  in  the  next  chapter : 

"But  it  is  a  practice,  gentlemen,  amongst  the  enemies 
of  reform  in  this  country,  and  their  deluded  supporters, 
to  observe  that  the  peace  and  happiness  of  America  de- 
pends upon  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  Washington,  and  not 
upon  the  purity  of  representation.  The  affectation  of  this 
belief  is  wickedness,  the  reality  is  weakness.  The  very 
same  classes  of  men  are  continually  lamenting  that  man 
is  so  selfish  an  animal,  that  the  idea  of  governing  a  com- 
munity through  the  medium  of  an  incorrupt  body  of  repre- 
sentatives is  completely  visionary.  Hence  they  are  com- 
pelled to  do  away  as  well  as  they  can  with  the  magnificent 
fact  of  fifteen  American  states  precisely  so  governed.  And 
this  very  attempt  though  an  artful  but  a  very  shallow 
compliment  to  the  virtues  of  Washington,  recoils  with  ten- 
fold force  on  themselves.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  was  freely  chosen  by  the  representatives  of  the 
people.  Here  then  we  see  the  happy  effects  of  a  generous 
representation.  It  does  speak  the  will  of  the  people :  it  does 
give  to  the  highest  virtue  the  highest  place;  it  does,  as  the 
sparks  fiy  upward,  naturally  provide  the  happiness  and 
glory  of  the  nation."  In  the  "Commonwealth  in  Danger"^ 
he  repeats  his  panegj^ic  of  American  representation  as 
the  source  of  American  happiness  and  praises  the  ballot, 
"generally  if  not  universally  adopted  in  the  election  of 
representatives." 

Cartwright  referred  to  the  American  government  also 
for  the  thesis  that  society  might  get  on  admirably  without 
nobles,  bishops  or  kings.  But  Thomas  Cooper,  advocate  of 
rotation  in  office,  a  radical  who  had  travelled  in  America, 
invested  in  lands  on  the  Susquehanna,  and  returned  to 
write  a  glowing  account  of  the  new  land,  in  fact  an  em- 
migration  puff,^  set  the  example  forth  incisively : 

"Privileged  orders  are  useless — a  position  that  may  now 

11795. 

iSome  Information  Concerning  America,  1794. 


78  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS 

be  advanced  upon  the  best  of  all  foundations;  the  most 
flourishing  nation  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  America,  having 
tried  the  experiment  of  doing  without  them  on  a  very  ex- 
tensive scale  for  near  twenty  years  and  with  success  fully 
equal  to  the  most  sanguine  expectations  of  her  best  wish- 
ers. .  .  .  The  Constitution  of  the  American  states  suggest 
to  me  some  observations  on  the  general  theory  of  political 
societies  which  I  think  important,  that  is  that  all  govern- 
ment is  carried  on  in  the  interest  of  the  governors,  not  as 
in  America,  the  many  governing  themeselves  through  a 
few.  .  .  . 

"This  system  of  representative  government  with  ex- 
clusion by  periodical  rotation  of  the  public  officers  (which 
if  not  necessary,  seems  at  least  expedient)  has  not  been 
well  understood  until  of  late  years;  and  America  is  the 
only  country  which  affords  tolerably  fair  examples  from 
which  other  nations  of  the  globe  may  judge  of  its  effects. 
The  simplicity,  the  tranquility,  and  the  cheapness  of  this 
system  are  unquestionably  manifest  in  that  quarter  of  the 
globe."^ 

Besides  the  freedom  of  the  suffrage  and  representation, 
other  leading  radical  tenets  were  religious  toleration  and 
separation  of  church  and  state,  precepts  which  we  found  in 
Price's  Observations.^  In  the  myth  making  days  between 
1783-90  there  were  reports  in  England  that  the  United 
States  had  adopted  an  official  church.  The  Public  Ad- 
vertiser reported,  "The  Americans  have  adopted  Presby- 
terianism  as  the  established  religion,  but  with  toleration  to 
all  others."^  The  Morning  Post  varied  the  announcement : 
"The  Americans  have  found  it  necessary  since  their  separa- 
tion from  this  country  to  adopt  Episcopacy,"*  a  rumor 
doubtless  originating  from  the  Kev.  Samuel  Seabury's  trip 
to  England  at  this  time.  Granville  Sharp  worked  cease- 
lessly to  introduce  Episcopacy  into  the  country  and  fre- 

lA  Reply  to  Mr.  Burke's  Invective,  T.  Cooper,  1792. 

^Ante,  28. 

812  February,  1783. 

<1  January,  1785. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE   RADICALS  79 

quently  corresponded  with  Franklin  on  the  subject.^  When 
an  edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  revised  for 
American  use,  was  issued  by  Debrett  in  1789,  the  reviewers 
made  merry  over  the  alterations  of  services  necessitated 
by  the  absence  of  monarchy,  and  twitted  the  compilers 
about  the  Thanksgiving  for  the  Fourth  day  of  July  which 
invoked  a  blessing  on  Congress  for  laying  "the  perpetual 
foundation  of  peace,  liberty  and  safety."^  They  also  dwelt 
on  the  freedom  of  religion  and  its  independence  of  the 
government. 

"In  most  of  the  states  religion  stands  entirely  on  the 
foundation  of  its  truth  and  the  power  of  God.  That  un- 
natural alliance  between  church  and  state  which  takes  place 
in  these  parts  of  the  world — that  power  in  magistrates  of 
appointing  a  form  of  religion  for  the  community — that 
invasion  of  the  rights  of  citizens  by  excluding  some  Chris- 
tians from  places  of  trust  .  .  .  being  quite  unknown.  This 
is  an  effect  of  the  Revolution  and  is  a  compensation  for  all 
the  blood  and  treasure  lavished  in  that  long  and  dreadful 
conflict,"  said  Thomas  Wright  in  a  sermon  preached  on  the 
decease  of  Richard  Price. 

The  occasions  when  America's  attitude  toward  religion 
came  in  for  most  discussion  in  England  were  the  recurring 
parliamentary  debates  over  the  test  oaths  and  disabilities 
of  Catholics.  We  shall  note  these  discussions  in  outlining 
the  views  of  the  administration.  There  were  similar  debates 
in  the  Irish  Parliament,  and  Grattan  and  Wolfe  Tone 
appealed  to  American  precedent  and  practice  to  disprove 
the  contention  that  there  would  be  strict  party  divisions 
on  religious  lines.  Grattan  queried  "In  other  countries — 
America — do  Catholic  and  Protestant  or  Protestant  and 
Catholic  there  act  as  religious  conbinations  under  the  dis- 
tinct banner  of  priest  or  parson,  or  as  a  solid  combined 
mass  of  people?  Is  not  infant  America  competent  to 
instruct  our  age  on  this  subject  and  give  us  simple  but 

iMemoir^  of  Oranville  Sharp,  1828. 
2Eur.  Mag.,  July,  1789. 


80  THE    VIEWS    OF    THE    RADICALS 

august  and  exalted  instruction  in  morality,  policy  and 
wisdom?"^ 

Wolfe  Tone  hit  the  same  analogy :  "But  I  will  look  for 
better  things.  The  example  of  America,  of  Poland  and  of 
France.  ...  In  America  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  sit 
equally  in  Congress  without  any  contention  arising,  other 
than  who  shall  serve  his  country  best.  So  may  it  be  with 
Ireland!"' 

American  toleration  led  him  to  this  glowing  account 
which  represents,  with  oratorical  flourish,  what  was 
thought  in  Ireland  of  the  freedom  over  the  ocean. 

"Look  I  beseech  you  to  America!  See  the  improvement 
in  her  condition  since  she  so  nobly  asserted  her  independ- 
ence on  a  provocation  which,  set  beside  your  grievances,  is 
not  even  worthy  to  be  named.  Before  the  struggle  she, 
too,  was  flourishing  far  beyond  what  you  have  ever  ex- 
perienced: England,  too,  was  then  infinitely  more  formid- 
able in  every  point  of  view  than  at  this  hour;  but  neither 
the  fear  of  risking  the  enjoyments  she  possessed,  or  the 
terrors  of  the  power  of  her  oppressors  prevented  America 
from  putting  all  to  the  hazard  when  her  liberty  was  at 
stake.  She  humbled  her  tyrants  at  her  feet,  and  see  how 
she  has  been  rewarded!  Contemplate  the  situation  of 
America  before  her  independence  and  see  whether  every 
motive  which  actuated  her  in  the  contest  does  not  apply  to 
you  with  ten-fold  force — compare  her  laws,  compare  her 
government  with  yours,  if  I  must  call  that  a  government 
which  is  indeed  a  subversion  of  all  great  principles,  and 
a  total  destruction  of  the  ends  for  which  men  submit  to  be 
controlled,  and  see  whether  it  is  not  worth  the  struggle 
to  place  yourselves  in  a  situation  equally  happy  as  liers 
for  yourselves  and  your  friends,  and  ten  times  more  formid- 
able for  your  enemies."^ 

It  may  be  said  that  the    general  radical   opinion  of 

^Sketch  of  the  Debates  on  the  Roman  Catholic  Bill,  1792,  112. 
2i.»  Argument  on  Behalf  of  the  Catholics,  T.  W.  Tone,  1792,  16. 
3J.n  Address  to  the  People  of  Ireland,  1796,  26. 


THE    VIEWS    OF    THE    RADICALS  81 

America,  the  country  where  their  preachings  were  prac- 
tices, concluded  that  her  people  were  extremely  happy 
and  her  government  extremely  cheap,^  this  latter  a  favorite 
point  with  the  economic  radicals  of  whom  a  few  flourished 
at  this  time.^  Some  notes  of  complaint  came  from  ultra- 
radicals. Thelwall  asserted  that  there  was  too  much  vener- 
ation for  property  and  too  much  religion.  His  evidence 
of  the  grasp  of  religion  was  the  alleged  Connecticut  Blue 
Law.  Said  he,  "I  think  there  is  too  much  religion  in  that 
country  when  a  man  taking  a  ride  on  a  Sunday  afternoon 
is  to  have  a  hue  and  cry  raised  to  bring  him  back,  and 
when  a  husband  can  be  made  to  do  penance  for  saluting 
his  wife  on  the  street  after  seven  years  absence."^ 

One  pamphleteer,  denouncing  aristocracies  everywhere, 
regrets  that  "even  America  seems  falling  into  the  same 
track,  she  is  even  now  permitting  aristocracy  to  creep  in 
under  the  name  Trade.  The  plain  soldier  of  liberty  is  lost 
amidst  the  unmeaning  titles  of — Esquire,  Honorable,  and 
Excellency,  bestowed  in  the  same  manner  as  certain  other 
nicknames  in  this  country.  .  .  .  Their  senate  is  only  a 
beggarly  imitation  of  the  English  House  of  Lords."* 

Wilberforce,  Sharp  and  Day  resented  the  specific  recog- 
nition of  slavery  in  our  constitution.  "Such  is  the  incon- 
sistency of  mankind !  These  are  the  men  whose  clamorings 
for  liberty  and  independence  are  heard  across  the  Atlantic 
Ocean,"  wrote  the  last.^  A  traveller  said  that  slavery  made 
him  think  he  was  in  a  "land  of  hellish  tyranny  instead  of 
land  of  liberty."^ 

Yet  despite  these  peccadillos  America  was  a  nation  with 
a  great  future  and  a  remarkable  present.  The  Earl  of 
Buchan  let  his  "eye  glide  ovesr  the  mazy  volume  of  his- 

iJames  Green,  A  Treatise  intituled  Political  Tracts,  1798 ;  T.  Cooper, 
Some  Information  Concerning  America;  John  Thelwall,  The  Tri-bune, 
Vol.  III. 

2Hall,  Op.  at.,  Pt.  I,  Chap.  VI. 

sThe  Natural  and  Constitutional  Rights  of  Britons,  1795,  82. 

iThe  Patriot's  Pocket  Companion  for  1797,  6. 

5The  Dying  Negro,  1793. 

6Loofc  Before  You  Leap,  1794. 


82  TEE    VIEWS    OF    THE    RADICALS 

tory"  where  there  was  not  a  "Hesiod,  an  Hippocrates,  a 
Zeuxis,  that  can  so  dazzle  a  good  man  as  to  prevent  his 
discovery  that  in  the  midst  of  their  splendid  productions 
there  were  many  more  happy  individuals  in  the  states  of 
North  America."^  Grerrald  praised  America  in  "A  Conven- 
tion the  Only  Means  of  Saving  Us  from  Ruin,"^  Tracts 
written  to  encourage  emigration  spoke  of  it  as  a  heaven 
on  earth. ^  Capel  Lofft,  crossing  swords  with  Burke,  con- 
tended that  chivalry  far  from  being  lost,  found  its  true 
haven  with  us.  "I  understand  there  is  more  of  the  spirit 
in  America  than  in  any  part  of  the  globe,"  he  wrote.*  Sir 
Philip  Francis  thought  the  United  States  "the  most 
flourishing  country  in  the  world."^  The  Political  Magazine 
lamented  that  "man  should  look  abroad  for  that  happiness 
which  he  should  attain  at  home."® 

It  was  the  idea  of  American  felicity  which  attracted  tlie 
little  group  of  literary  men,  colored  with  youthful  radical- 
ism, who  thought  up  the  scheme  of  pantistocracy.  In  the 
literature  of  this  era  America  gets  meagre  attention. 
Blake's  rhapsody  is  a  grotesque.'  Burns  was  warmed  by 
the  American  enterprise  more  than  any  other  bard.  He 
hailed  in  verse  the  example  of  Hancock  and  Franklin  and 
wrote  an  ode  for  Washington's  birthday.^  Bade  to  drink 
a  toast  to  Pitt,  he  offered  the  health  "of  a  better  man, 
George  Washington."  Wordsworth  thought  the  United 
States,  first  of  all  nations,  had  seen  and  followed  man- 
kind's true  interest.®  Beckford  indorsed  American  free- 
dom.^". Robert  Bage  thought  our  government  the  best  on 
earth. ^^    But  young  Southey  and  Coleridge  were  the  liter- 

irfee  Bee,  VIII,  323. 

21793,  71.  seq. 

^Emigration  to  America,  1798. 

^Remarks  on  the  Letter  of  the  Rt.  Eon.  Ed  Burke,  1791,  38. 

^Memoirs,  II,  296. 

8September,  1794. 

TAmerica — A  Prophesy,  1793. 

^Works   (Henley,  1896),  IT.  154  and  171. 

^Prose  Works   (Knight,  1896),  I,  12. 
lOLi/e  and  Letters,  1910,  To  Wadsworth,  7  September^  1798. 
liEerm^prong,  1796,  II,  164. 


THE    VIEWS   OF   THE   RADICALS  83 

ary  pantistocrats  who  talked  of  founding  a  communist 
colony  on  the  banks  of  the  Susquehanna  where  Thomas 
Cooper  had  his  land.  They  agreed  with  Thomas  Poole  who 
wrote  his  friend  Porkis : 

"America  seems  the  only  asylum  of  peace  and  liberty — 
the  only  place  where  the  dearest  feelings  of  man  are  are 
not  insulted;  in  short  the  only  spot  where  a  man  the  least 
humane  and  philosophical  can  live  happily."^ 

They  would  have  agreed  also,  as  would  most  liberal 
thinkers  of  the  day,  with  Grattan's  aureate  imagery,  the 
zenith  of  anti-administration  laudation  of  the  United 
States : 

"Bankrupt  America;  that  America  with  which  in  1785, 
you  said  you  would  not  trade.  Where  is  she  now?  See 
her  wrapped  in  her  western  car  of  steady  breeze,  flying 
Taster  far  than  the  prophet's  flame,  which  falls  short  of 
her  progress,  and,  traversing,  parallels  and  circles  until 
she  spreads  herself  a  vast  morning  glory  in  the  containing 
ether — a  power  of  the  deep."^ 

iThomas  Poole  and  His  Friends,  1888.  I,  77. 
^Speeches  of  the  Rt.  Hon.  Henry  Grattan,  1822,  II,  200. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Opinion  of  the  Conservatives. 

"Fear  God,  and  the  King,  and  meddle  not  with  those 
that  excite  men  to  change,"  was  a  text  from  Proverbs, 
xxiv,  which  found  a  frequent  place  in  the  texts  of  pulpit 
discourses  explaining  the  conservative  creed,  attacking 
the  teachings  of  the  radicals,  and  the  examples  of  France 
and  America.  In  a  sense  it  may  be  held  that  conserva- 
tism always  is  a  religion,  calling  upon  faith,  whereas  rad- 
icalism, the  movement  of  protest  against  the  fixed  order, 
calls  upon  reason  and  intellectual  inquiry,  under  the  spur 
of  depressing  economic,  social,  or  political  conditions. 
Conservatism  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  essentially  a 
religion.  It  was  not  without  fitness  that  the  clergy  should 
enter  the  lists  by  observing  that  "We  hear  nothing  in  the 
Scriptures  about  Republics."^  And  that  all  establishment 
of  Republics  are  "Treason  Against  Heaven."^  John 
Whitaker,  B.D.,  published  "The  Real  Origin  of  Govern- 
ment" and  expressed  the  classic  religious  view: 

"Then  rose  Republics.  The  first  that  made  its  appear- 
ance in  the  world  was  at  Athens.  The  keen  genius  of  At- 
tica, wanting  to  try  an  experiment  in  the  universal  polity 
of  man,  to  substitute  a  creature  of  its  own  reason  for  the 
fabrication  of  God's  wisdom^  and  to  violate  the  primo- 
genial  law  of  nature  in  favor  of  a  fanastical  theory,  took 
advantage  of  the  death  of  a  self-devoted  monarch  by  ven- 
turing upon  the  bold  innovation  of  creating  a  Republic."' 

lA  True  Englishman's  New  Tear's  Gift  to  His  Country,  1792. 
2A  Fast  Sermon,  E.  Burrows,  1791. 
31795,  28. 

85 


86  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

Confronted  with  the  existence  of  a  flourishing  republic 
in  America,  conservatism,  religious  and  lay,  was  hard 
put.  Mere  theoretic  declamation  would  not  do.  Their 
adversaries  were  pressing  the  example  of  a  particular  in- 
stance to  undermine  the  truth  of  a  general  statement.  Be- 
fore this  onset  conservatism  had  to  trim  to  a  new  tack. 
Their  business  was  to  belittle  the  experiment  in  some 
plausible  way. 

Who  were  the  conservatives  of  the  era?  As  customarily, 
they  were  the  administration,  the  office  holders,  the  aris- 
tocratic class,  the  multitudinous  clergy,  and  the  comfort- 
able property  owners.  They  were  in.  The  others  were 
out.  They  were  the  directing  group,  and  what,  in  Bishop 
Horsley's  phrase,  did  other  people  have  to  do  with  govern- 
ment except  to  obey  it?  Then  there  were  a  few  political 
thinkers  like  Burke — the  greatest  champion  of  the  cause, 
whose  noble  panegyric  of  aristocracy^  makes  us  thrill  even 
to  this  day — who  had  worked  out  a  philosophy  of  conserva- 
tism on  what  they  considered  an  experimental  basis.  Be- 
sides, as  a  foil  to  the  radical  societies,  there  were  two  of 
opposite  complexion,  "The  Association  at  the  Crown  and 
Anchor"  and  "The  Association  at  St.  Alban's  Tavern." 

In  dealing  with  America  and  countering  the  contention 
that  the  precedent  of  the  United  States  argued  that  con- 
tinental countries,  indeed  Great  Britain  itself,  might  and 
should  follow  some  of  America's  reforms,  conservative 
thought  came  under  eight  main  heads.  As  radicalism's 
picture  had  been  tinted  high,  conservatism's  portrait  was 
shadowed  low. 

I.  They  took  issue  on  the  facts :  America's  institutions 
were  not  framed  by  the  people;  there  was  not  a  liberal 
suffrage;  there  was  not  a  popular  government;  nobility 
and  a  state  church  were  not  eliminated  from  choice. 

II.  They  asserted  that  the  American  enterprise  was 
already  a  failure,  and  that  Republicanism  had  run  mad. 

^Appeal  from  the  New  to  the  Old  Whigs  (Works),  12  Vols.,  1884, 
IV,  174. 


THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES  87 

III.  They  appealed  again  to  the  classic  political  phil- 
osophy to  denounce  republics  and  democracy. 

IV.  They  said  the  good  features  really  in  vogue  in 
America  were  due  solely  to  the  British  Constitution  and 
British  example  which,  while  the  Americans  had  imitated, 
the  radicals  were  trying  to  defame. 

V.  They  distinguished  between  conditions  in  America 
which  made  such  institutions  possible  and  conditions  in 
Eurppe  which  made  them  highly  dangerous. 

VI.  They  dwelt  on  the  circumstances  that  so  far 
America  was  only  an  experiment — too  short  for  drawing 
conclusions. 

VII.  They  prophesied  that  she  would  yet  break  up  or 
revert  to  monarchy. 

VIII.  They  claimed  that  her  seeming  success  should 
be  accredited  to  one  remarkable  character,  Washington. 
With  his  death  the  end  would  arrive. 

First,  the  point  that  radicals  did  not  state  American 
political  conditions  candidly,  and  that  in  fact  the  system 
was  already  a  failure.  It  was  asserted  that  the  constitu- 
tion had  not  been  formed  by  the  people  and  that  the  beati- 
tude of  a  written  constitution  was  a  myth :  "At  the  era  of 
American  independence,  when  a  frame  of  government  was 
to  be  established  in  the  thirteen  states,  did  each  individual 
in  his  own  personal  and  sovereign  right  enter  into  a  com- 
pact with  each  other  to  produce  that  government?  No. 
Their  different  Assemblies,  Congress  and  Senate,  were  so 
far  from  being  the  choice  of  every  individual  that  but  a 
twentieth  part  of  the  people  were  electors."^ 

J.  Bowles  seconded  this  view  in  his  "Thoughts  on  the 
Origin  and  Foundation  of  Political  Constitutions."^  "In 
the  year  1787  a  new  constitution  was  framed — not  by  the 
people  but  by  the  Convention,  shut  up  for  that  purpose  in 
CLOSE  DIVAN.  And  in  that  constitution  was  recog- 
nized in  a  striking  manner  the  necessity  of  reverting  as 
far  as  circumstances  would  allow  to  the  principles  of  their 


II,  Hunt,  The  Rights  of  Englishmen,  N.  D. 
21795. 


86  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

ancient  system,  by  assimilating  thereto  a  new  form  of 
government." 

Further,  the  constitution  which  was  adopted  was  "a 
baseless  fabric,"  according  to  Anthony  Stokes.^  "It  has 
no  fundamental  and  unalterable  principle  of  liberty;  but 
everything  may  be  afloat  whenever  a  convention  is  called." 
One  of  Paine's  adversaries  asked :  "What  do  the  constitu- 
tions of  America  and  France  derive  from  the  visible  form 
of  their  publication ,  more  than  that  the  fundamental 
principle  of  our  government  is  contained  in  our  common 
and  statute  laws;  they  are  the  rule  and  guidance  of  the 
executive,  judiciary  and  legislative  powers;  and  the  con- 
stitutions of  France  and  America  are  formed  chiefly  on 
the  existing  laws  of  this  country."^ 

Another  very  truly  said,  while  poking  fun  at  the  "Polit- 
ical Bible  which  must  be  in  every  pocket,"  that  Paine,  by 
his  own  principles,  must  admit  that  a  written  constitu- 
tion is  nothing,  if  people  can  change  it  at  will."^ 

As  for  the  boasted  choice  of  a  government  without  a 
nobility,  a  state  religion,  and  monarchy,  that  was  easily 
explained  away.  It  was  necessity,  not  choice.  Where 
could  thej  get  a  nobility  when  there  were  no  nobles?  As 
the  conservatives  put  it : 

"America  during  its  connection  with  England,  was  the 
sink  into  which  Great  Britain  poured  all  its  filth.  The 
convicts  who  were  not  immediately  executed  were  trans- 
ported into  that  country ;  and  the  fair  race  of  patriots  and 
saints  may  be  generally  traced  to  transported  thieves.  .  .  . 
The  policy  of  a  nobility  hath  prevailed  all  over  the  world, 
and  probably  will  prevail,  with  the  exception  of  countries 
so  circumstanced  as  America,  where  the  people  must  for- 
get their  ancestors.  The  future  colony  of  Botany  Bay 
will  follow  their  example;  they  will  have  no  escutcheons 
and  armorial  bearings — they  will  be  Republicans."* 

^Desultory  Observations  on  Oreat  Britain,  1793. 
Constitutional  Letters  in  Answer  to  Paine,  Anon.,  1792. 
8W.  Lewelyn,  An  Appeal  to  Men  Against  Paine's  Rights   of  Man, 
N.  D.,  92. 

*A  Defense  of  the  Constitution  of  England,  1791,  Anon.,  16. 


THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES  89 

Answering  the  gratulation  about  the  absence  of  re- 
ligious tests  and  an  official  church,  Stokes  sneers :  "Their 
new  constitution  in  1787  ordains  that  no  religious  tests 
shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  office  under 
the  United  States;  so  that  at  present  a  Mahometan  or 
even  a  Pagan,  may  be  President,  Vice-President  or  a  mem- 
ber of  Congress."^ 

John  Brand  explains  the  absence  of  official  religion 
thus:  "In  America  there  would  have  been  an  established 
religion  if  the  Quakers  had  not  been  the  leading  sect;  and 
if  in  framing  the  Federal  Union  it  had  been  practicable 
to  set  one  sect  above  the  other  without  danger."^ 

Similarly  there  was  nothing  sacred  about  the  supposed 
free  choice  of  Republicanism :  "The  great  leaders  of  affairs 
of  America  who  had  to  deal  with  a  mixed  race  of  people, 
dispersed  over  a  vast  tract  of  country,  were  well  aware 
that  they  could  only  engage  them  in  their  projects  by  the 
number  of  allurements  they  could  hold  out.  For  this  pur- 
pose they  proposed  a  system  of  government  that  afforded 
a  prospect  of  consequence  to  a  vast  number  of  the  people — 
popularity  was  the  great  object  of  every  measure  that  was 
started,  and  the  necessity  of  flattering  the  multitude  im- 
posed the  leading  features  of  their  constitution."^ 

That  Republicanism  was  really  adopted  as  a  second  best 
was  evident  from  the  fact  that  it  was  really  not  permitted 
to  exist.  There  was  the  shadow  but  not  the  substance.  "Is 
America  then  free?  I  deny  it.  If  General  Washington 
was  chosen  governor  by  a  certain  number  of  men,  or  by 
their  representatives,  he  was  only  chosen  by  such  electors 
as  were  qualified  by  the  laws  of  that  country  to  give  their 
vote  on  the  day  of  election."* 

The  limited  suffrage  was  made  much  of  by  all  conserva- 
tives, one  of  whose  chief  tenets  taught  that  property  was 
the  source  of  the  vote  and  that  for  property  government 

lOp.  at.,  45. 

^Defense  of  the  Constitution,  1796. 

3A«  Answer  to  the  Second  Part  of  the  Rights  of  M<m,  Anon.,  1792. 

4A  Letter  to  a  Friend  in  the  Country,  Anon.,  1792. 


90  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

itself  existed.  America,  instead  of  being  a  precedent  for 
the  radicals  should  be  a  precedent  for  them.  Arthur 
Young,  comparing  America  and  France,  gave  this  reason 
for  the  distinction  between  them: 

"In  France  the  populace  are  electors — The  very  reverse 
is  the  case  in  America,  there  is  not  a  single  state  in  which 
voters  must  not  have  a  qualification  of  property.  These 
two  great  experiments  ought  to  pour  conviction  in  every 
mind  that  order  and  property  can  never  be  safe  if  the  right 
of  election  is  personal  instead  of  being  attached  to  prop- 
erty."^ 

Kobert  Thomas  in  "The  Cause  of  Truth,"  a  conservative 
volley  of  437  pages  intended  to  annihilate  the  whole  repub- 
lican doctrine,  emphasized  the  suffrage  qualifications  of 
each  state,^  and  said  that  not  alone  were  there  many 
limitations  but  that  they  were  going  to  be  increased.  "If 
the  qualifications  for  being  a  voter  be  lower  in  America 
than  in  Britain,  it  is  because  the  people  are  more  on  a 
level  but  .  .  .  the  facility  of  acquiring  the  right  of  suffrage 
is  already  found  to  be  attended  with  mischievous  conse- 
quence. The  Americans  therefore,  it  is  said,  intend  to 
remedy  these  evils  by  raising  the  qualifications  for  being 
a  freeman  and  a  voter. "^  Besides  the  contention  that  the 
American  laboratory  had  not  freely  or  really  tested  the 
devices  radicalism  advocated,  there  was  an  occasional 
statement  that  the  United  States  was  already  a  failure. 
"It  has  long  been  known  that  a  great  part  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  United  States  are  discontented  with  their 
present  constitution,"  said  a  member  of  parliament  in 
1794.*  Her  congress  had  to  be  "bribed — from  the  earnings 
of  the  indigent  poor."^  The  presidency  was  a  tottering 
institution  handled  by  William  Lewelyn  after  the  fashion 
of  Paine  when  he  derided  hereditary  monarchy: 

^Travels  in  France,  Bohn,  1900,  338. 

2Taking  them  from  Morse's   American  Geography. 

3p.  318. 

Wonsiderations  on  False  and  Real  Alarms,  N.  MacLeod,  1794. 

5Pol.  Review,  3  July,  1792. 


THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES  91 

"He  is  a  little  short  lived  king.  His  birth  and  his  reign 
begin  the  same  moment.  He  reigns  three  (sic)  years,  then 
dies  always  by  agreement.  .  .  .  Before  he  is  out  of  the 
cradle  he  expires.  .  .  .  Raising  plebians  to  the  summit 
of  national  power  and  dignity  by  the  election  of  a 
day  and  then  pulling  them  down  and  levelling  them  with 
the  lowest  are  transitions  too  sudden  and  rapid  to  be  good. 
The  government  is  always  in  its  own  way,  ever  disturbing 
and  interrupting  its  own  business,  changing  and  stopping 
without  end.  ...  I  call  upon  divines,  lawyers,  physicians, 
surgeons,  and  all  the  faculty  and  ask  them  one  by  one 
whether  any  man,  raised  by  election  in  one  day  to  their 
situations,  could  manage  their  subjects  unprepared  by  an 
education."^ 

America  was  reported  run  mad  with  republicanism. 
George  Walker's  "Vagabond,"  the  novel,  satirized  the 
alleged  situation.  His  hero,  visiting  Philadelphia,  finds 
that  the  servants  shout,  "I  am  a  free  born  American.  Who 
are  you — some  lousy,  beggarly  emigre?"  The  inhabitants 
declare  that  they  do  not  mind  yellow  fever,  "since  we  have 
got  our  independence."^  Anti-emigration  pamphlets,  of 
which  this  period  has  a  number  aimed  to  keep  British 
youths  at  home,  remark  that  when  an  immigrant  appears  in 
America  with  a  good  horse,  "there  is  a  sudden  outflowering 
of  the  rights  of  man.^  Though  Wimborne,  Landsdowne's 
son,  had  made  the  journey,  Pinkerton  the  historian, 
solemnly  advised  the  Earl  of  Buchan  against  visiting 
America  lest  "in  their  present  political  insanity  ...  a 
nobleman  might  be  exposed  to  incivility."* 

Part  of  the  conservative  attack  on  American  example 
was  based  on  the  classic  view  of  the  evils  of  republican 
democracy  a  priori.  We  find  it  set  forth  in  Robert 
Thomas's  "Cause  of  Truth,"^  in  R.  Bisset's  "Sketch  of 
Democracy"^  and  John  Reeves's  "Thoughts  on  English 
Government"^     It  reappears  in  the  pamphlet  literature. 

iAn  Appeal,  24.  21799,  i62.         3Stoke's  Desultory  Ohservations. 

430  July,  1794,  Lit.  Corresp.  51797.  61796.  71795 


92  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

Republics  and  Democracies  were  bad  per  se,  and  that  was 
all  there  was  about  it.  If  America  had  not  blown  up  yet, 
'lit  was  merely  preparing  to  make  a  fine  explosion  when  it 
did.  Extravagance,  insurrection,  corruption,  immorality, 
irreligion,  violation  of  private  property,  cabal,  ingratitude, 
fickleness,  the  negation  of  liberty,  were  some  of  the  ad- 
juncts of  all  democratic  or  republican  states.^ 

"There  does  not  appear  to  be  more  than  four  descriptions 
of  society  in  the  known  world  capable  of  admitting  a  form 
of  government  having  the  least  trait  of  being  republican — 
these  are  a  Tribe  of  Indians,  an  horde  of  Hottentots,  a 
band  of  Arabs  and  a  nest  of  Pirates,"  was  one  expression 
of  classicism.^ 

This  bit  of  political  wisdom  comes  from  a  pamphleteer 
who  was  attacking  Paine.  It  is  in  the  denunciation  of  his 
"Rights  of  Man"  that  we  most  frequently  find  another 
corrective  rebuttal  to  the  precedents  of  America — that  all 
her  good  features  are  copied  upon  the  English  model. 
Indeed  the  constitution  is  itself  a  steal.  A  chaplain  in  the 
navy,  who  quotes  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  that  "Paine, 
Franklin,  and  other  Republicans  will  meet  in  Hell,"  re- 
marks: "At  the  very  instant  the  laws  of  England  are 
transcribing,  and  her  constitution  being  adopted  as  a 
model  by  Poland,  France  and  America,  Paine,  as  if  he 
were  writing  to  lunatics,  has  brass  of  face  enough  to 
assure  us  that  we  have  never  had  a  constitution."' 

Another  clergyman  says,  "The  United  States  got  their 
constitutions  from  us  ...  so  that  whether  your  constitu- 
tion be  good  or  bad  you  ought  at  least  to  thank  us  for  it."* 

The  likeness  between  the  two  constitutions  was  observed 
by  all  parties.  The  radicals  accentuated  the  differences, 
the  conservatives  the  similarities.  Arthur  Young  said  in 
his  "Travels  in  France"^  that  there  was  not  "now  in  the 
world  a  constitution  so  near  the  British  as  that  of  the 

iReeves,   Bisset,   Thomas,   J.   Bowles;   Dialogues   on   the   Rights   of 
Britons,  1792. 
^Rights  of  a  Free  People,  1792.  ^Letters  to  a  Friend,  1791. 

*W.  Jepson,  Letters  to  Thomas  Payne,  N.  D.  Sp.  168. 


THE  opinio:^  of  the  conservatives  93 

United  States."  Somerville  expressed  the  conservative 
conclusion  thus: 

"We  have  heard  much  of  the  happy  condition  of  the 
American  colonies  since  their  separation  from  the  mother 
country,  and  of  the  excellence  of  their  government  as  the 
source  of  their  happy  condition.  .  .  .  Yet  I  cannot  see 
ground  for  inferring  from  it  the  inferiority  of  our  own 
political  condition,  or  for  wishing  to  change  it.  Were  not 
the  seeds  of  American  prosperity  planted  under  the 
auspices,  and  has  it  not  been  fostered  by  the  parental 
hand  of  the  British  constitution? — Say  everything  you  can 
of  the  prosperity  in  America,  all  will  redound  to  the  honor 
of  Britain."^ 

When  pressed  on  the  difference  between  the  British  con- 
stitution and  the  American — and  asked  why  what  was  good 
for  the  United  States  was  not  good  for  Europe,  the  conserv- 
atives replied  by  the  judicial  device  of  distinguishing  cases. 
The  altered  circumstances  which  conservatives  advanced 
as  permitting  the  American  endeavor  to  endure  were: 
"Most  of  the  people  are  proprietors.  .  .  .  They  have  more 
^and  than  they  need.  .  •  .  Few  taxes,  freedom  from  the 
luxury  of  Europe."^  Society  was  "less  advanced.  .  .  . 
There  were  no  great  cities  in  the  countrj^"^  "Manufacture 
and  commerce  do  not  yet  exist  to  beget  inequalities  in 
property."*  The  "newness  and  the  temporary  unity  be- 
gotten by  the  struggle  for  independence.  The  distances 
and  small  population.  .  .  .  The  present  absence  of  am- 
bitious men.  .  .  .  The  fact  that  people  are  too  busy  getting 
subsistence  to  think  of  insurrection,"  were  some  of  the 
features  E.  Thomas  stressed  as  demonstrating  the  absurdity 
of  making  America  an  analogy.^ 

Arthur  Young  took  the  same  direction,  adding  to  his 
argument  that  America  was  only  an  experiment:  "The 

Wbservations  on  the  Constitution  .  .  .  of  Britain,  1793,  48. 

Hnevitahle  Consequences  of  Reform,  W.  Playfair,  1792. 

ZThe  Importance  of  Preserving  the  System  of  Civil  Oovernment,  1793. 

4D.  M.  Peacock,  Op.  Cit.. 

^The  Cause  of  Truth,  1797. 


94  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

Jacobins  boast  the  government  of  America  too  soon  to  have 
experiment  for  their  support,  all  countries  fully  settled 
must  have  a  numerous  and  indigent  poor.  America,  with 
immense  deserts  of  fertile  land  at  command,  has  no  indigent 
poor  to  govern.  ...  But  the  time  will  come  when  she  is 
no  longer  free  from  its  pressure.  ...  It  will  then  be 
found  whether  her  system  is  so  perfect  as  some  pretend.  If 
the  mass  of  her  people  are  in  truth  paramount  they  will 
pass  laws  for  their  own  relief,  and  how  is  that  to  be 
effected  without  attacking  proprietors.  .  .  ?  To  suppose 
that  a  mob  will  possess  the  sovereign  authority  in  act,  as 
well  as  in  right,  and  remain  hungry  is  a  farce. "^ 

In  the  "Travels  in  France"  Young  wrote:  "Much  has 
been  said  in  favor  of  the  American  government  and  I  be- 
lieve with  fair  justice,  yet  .  .  .  the  exports  of  the  United 
States  now  amount  to  twenty  millions  of  dollars.  When 
they  amount  to  five  hundred  millions,  when  great  wealth, 
vast  cities  and  immense  private  fortunes  are  formed  .  .  . 
will  the  government  then  be  as  faultless  as  it  appears  at 
present?  .  .  .  We  have  no  convictions,  no  proof,  it  is  in 
the  womb  of  time— THE  EXPERIMENT  IS  NOT 
MADE."2 

In  the  pamphlet  literature  the  unanswerable  point  of 
brief  experiment  is  repeatedly  advanced.  Somerville  said 
"It  would  take  one  hundred  years  to  decide.  .  .  .  Who 
can  say  that  it  will  outlive  its  century,  that  great  test  of 
all  sublunary  things?"^  The  only  available  retort  of  the 
radical  was  to  twit  the  conservatives  for  inconsistency  in 
concluding  from  the  short  experiment  in  France  that  re- 
publicanism was  akin  to  anarchy,  while  denying  that  the 
experiment  of  America  was  long  enough  to  make  deduc- 
tions. "Eighteen  years  is  no  experiment  in  America,  six 
months  is  a  complete  experiment  in  France."* 

Hence,  if  the  experiment  were  too  short  to  prove  any- 

i-The  Example  of  France  a  Warning  to  Oreat  Britain,  1794,  61. 

2p.  344. 

30p.  Git.,  55. 

iPeace  and  Reform,  Daniel  Stuart,  1794. 


THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES  95 

thing  the  United  States  might  get  monarchy  after  all ;  and 
it  would  doubtless  break  up.  The  former  had  been  foreboded 
since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  so  far  back  at  1789.^ 
In  the  "Argus,"  for  1789,  Sampson  Perry  says  that  it  is 
"probable  that  the  American  republic  will  finally  resolve 
itself  into  the  best  of  all  possible  governments — a  limited 
monarchy."^  "It  is  impossible  so  great  a  country  can 
always  continue  one  empire,"  said  another  writer.  "Dis- 
putes will  arise  from  a  variety  of  causes — ambition,  lust 
of  dominion  and  competition  of  interests.  In  such  conflicts 
it  is  difficult  to  conjecture  under  what  form  of  government 
they  may  at  length  be  settled."^  Charlemont,  the  Irishman, 
who  admired  America,  nevertheless  took  the  same  view: 
"The  American  constitution,  which  is  much  to  be  pre- 
ferred, can  only  last  until  that  immense  region,  increasing 
in  wealth  and  population  shall  be  divided  into  various 
states,  republics  and  kingdoms,  while  the  British  oak.  .  . 
will  ,  .  .  remain  for  ages  a  lasting  monument  of  its  su- 
preme strength."* 

The  precise  moment  set  by  the  conservative  debaters 
for  the  disruption  of  the  American  state  and  society  was 
the  day  of  Washington's  death,  or  of  his  descent  from  his 
high  office.  An  election  would  introduce  factious  chaos. 
The  great  man's  end  would  coincide  with  America's  anihil- 
ation. 

'When  Hector  falls,  then  Ilion  is  no  more!" 

Washington's  career  was  a  marvel  to  English  radical  and 
conservative  alike.  Running  counter  to  history  as  a  vic- 
torious general,  he  had  put  the  crow  n  by.  Selfishness  was 
a  tertiary  part  of  his  makeup.  The  welfare  of  the  United 
States  was  his  prime  object,  and,  as  we  read  the  letters 
and  remaining  records  of  the  "fathers,"  despite  the  auster- 
ity   of   Washington's    personality    showing    through    the 

tLon.  CJironicle,  10  December;  Pub.  Advertiser,  25  May. 

2p,  259. 

sHunt,  Rights  of  Englishmen,  1792,  36. 

^Charlemont  Mss.,  Hist.  Mss.  Comm.,  12th  Rpt.,  I,  183. 


%  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

written  documents,  it  is  he  who  of  all  commands  most 
respect,  not  for  any  mental  agility  like  Hamilton,  or  acute 
sense  of  popular  favor  like  Jefferson,  but  for  deep  whole- 
someness,  sincerity  and  elevation  of  character. 

In  England  Washington  was  an  object  of  interest  from 
the  first.  We  have  noticed  Burke's  praise  of  him  in  Ameri- 
ca's darkest  days.^  A  newspaper  paragraph  on  Washing- 
ton was  sure  to  be  read.  His  quiet  resignation  and  return 
to  Virginia  elicited  wide  comment.  His  occasional  public 
appearances  were  always  reported.  Failing  facts,  the 
hacks  supplied  canards.  He  was  said  to  be  emigrating 
from  America  for  the  Continent.  He  was  busy  writing  a 
history  of  the  war.  An  Irish  newspaper,  whose  account 
was  copied  in  London^  announced  that  "a  discovery  has 
been  made  which  will  astonish  the  whole  world — The  great 
and  excellent  General  Washington  is  actually  discovered 
to  be  of  the  female  sex."  In  1794  the  Sun  ran  a  rumor  that 
he  had  been  assassinated  by  a  Jacobin.^ 

It  was  the  eminent  character  of  the  man  which  held  the 
union  together,  in  the  conservative  contention,  and  hence 
invalidated  the  whole  American  project  as  one  for  imita- 
tion. Peacock,  in  his  "Considerations  on  the  Structure  of 
the  House  of  Commons"  expressed  the  prevalent  view :  "It 
may  well  be  doubted  whether  that  power  has  not  main- 
tained itself  hitherto,  rather  by  the  personal  abilities  and 
popularity  of  the  individual  in  whose  hands  it  has  been 
placed,  than  by  its  own  proper  strength  and  vigor.  At 
least  the  necessity  that  there  seems  to  have  been  of  con- 
tinuing Washington  in  the  presidentship,  so  long  beyond 
the  term  appointed  by  the  constitution,  strongly  counte- 
nances such  an  opinion." 

In  one  of  the  anti-Paine  pamphlets  we  get  an  expression 
of  the  reiterated  view  of  what  will  likely  happen  to  the 
United  States  at  his  death:  "Who  can  say  but  that  the 
election  of  a  successor  to  Washington  may  not  shake  this 
newly  raised  empire  to   its  very   foundation;   and  that 

lAnte,  39.  2White.  Ev.  Post,  31  May,  1783  34  May. 


THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES  97 

country,  as  well  as  others,  be  happy  to  submit  to  an  heredit- 
ary magistrate  restrained  by  law  rather  than  to  an  equal 
elevated  perhaps  by  the  chance  of  the  moment,  who  in  his 
exalted  situation  must  ever  retain  the  prejudices  of  the 
private  citizen."^ 

It  will  be  hard  to  overemphasize  the  universality  of  the 
view  that  the  passing  of  Washington  would  be  the  signal 
for  the  coming  of  ruin.  His  acceptance  of  a  second  election, 
regarded  ominously  by  some  radicals,  was  by  others  in- 
terpreted to  mean  that  he  did  not  dare  try  the  experiment 
of  an  open  election.  His  Farewell  Address,  widely  pub- 
lished and  praised,  and  his  declination  to  accept  a  third 
term  was  asserted  to  be  clear  evidence  that  he  felt  he  had 
best  retire  from  the  scene  and  try  to  superintend  at  least 
one  tranquil  election  before  his  death. ^ 

The  selection  of  Adams  was  watched  with  care.^  Though 
travelers  like  Wansey^  and  Cooper^  had  reported  the  quiet- 
ness of  American  elections,  and  Gerrald  had  testified  to 
witnessing  their  peaceful  procedure,®  England  was  doubt- 
ful. In  Holland  the  British  stories  about  probable  trouble 
disturbed  the  American  funds.''  Liston,  lately  sent  out 
English  minister  to  succeed  Hammond,  called  the  Minis- 
try's attention  to  the  fact  that  "this  is  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  the  government  that  the  election  is  a  con- 
tested one."^  He  considered  the  "election  so  important  for 
the  future  system  of  politics  in  the  United  States  that  I 
have  thought  it  worth  while  to  detain  the  Princess  of 
Wales  packet  for  some  days  that  I  might  have  it  in  my 
power  to  inform  your  Lordship  of  the  event."* 

From  the  standpoint  of  this  monograph  the  orderly 
election  and  succession  of  Adams  is  of  prime  importance; 
for  that  occasion  marks  the  transition  in  general  English 
opinion  from  the  verdict  that  the  United  States  govern- 

lA  Letter  to  a  Friend,  1792. 

2T.  S.  Norg-ate,  The  Principles  of  Oovemment,  1797,  24 ;  A.  H.  Rowan, 
Autobiography,  1840,  110. 

3J.  Q.  Adams,  Works,  II,  101.  *Post. 

5Some  Information  Concerning  America,  1794. 

6Ante,  73.  7J.  Q.  Adams,  Works,  II,  63. 

817  November,  1796,  F.  O.  Eecs.  Amer.,  Ser.  II,  XIV. 


98  THE    OPINION    OF    THE    CONSERVATIVES 

ment  was  a  temporary  expedient  to  the  conclusion  that 
it  had  merits  which  would  make  it  endure.  Radicals,  now 
greatly  held  back,  pointed  with  delight  to  the  election. 
"It  has  obviated  the  anxiety  of  every  friend  to  liberty.  .  .  . 
It  was  concluded  without  any  disturbance,  and  affords  a 
favorable  presage  of  American  prosperity."^  So  the  Cabinet 
viewed  it,  especially  when  they  found  Adams  firm  in  his 
stand  with  France  in  1797-98. 

One  last  lingering  wail  we  must  record.  It  came  from 
Jonathan  Boucher,  the  expounder  of  orthodox  Tory  politi- 
cal philosophy  in  the  Colonies  before  the  Revolution,  who 
long  since  had  retreated  to  live  in  the  mother  country.  He 
addressed  his  remarks  to  Washington,  then  in  retirement 
at  Mt.  Vernon,  and  gave  some  senile  prophesies  for 
America's  future  which  remind  us  of  the  visions  of  Tucker 
and  of  Andrews  back  in  1782. 

"Founded  as  the  present  government  of  North  America 
was,  under  the  auspices  of  the  people,  it  must  have  been 
a  solecism  in  politics  had  it  not  been  weak.  .  .  .  With  the 
seed  of  almost  every  political  evil  that  can  be  named,  and 
perhaps  most  of  all  that  of  tyranny  ...  it  is  hardly  pos- 
sible that  they  should  be  either  easily  or  well  governed; 
and  by  being  ill  governed  they  are  sure  to  become  an  un- 
happy people.  ...  I  am  tempted  to  conclude  that  after 
a  long  series  of  dissensions  and  contests  the  great  continent 
of  North  America  will  become  a  great  empire  under  a  great 
monarch.  ...  If,  in  indulging  the  spirit  of  vaticination 
respecting  the  future  destiny  of  America,  I  might  take 
upon  me  still  further  to  conjecture  for  ages  yet  unborn,  I 
would  prognosticate  that  the  final  downfall  of  the  present 
confederated  government  will,  like  its  origin,  come  from 
the  North — the  snowclad  deserts  of  Acadia  and  Canada 
will  at  some  period  finally  give  law  to  all  North  America 
and  also  the  West  India  Islands."^  In  the  comment  of  a 
Monthly  Reviewer,  let  us  leave  this  morsel  to  posterity. 

iNorgate,  Op.  Cit.  .  .  . 

24.  View  of  the  Caunes  an4  Comequcnces  of  the  American  Revolution, 
1799. 


CHAPTER  III. 
The  Administration,  Fox,  and  Bueke. 

We  have  dwelt  on  the  inimical  attitude  of  the  Cabinet 
during  the  hazardous  days  before  1789.  Its  members,  cer- 
tain that  the  country  could  not  keep  treaties,  and  believing 
that  it  would  eventually  disintegrate,  ignored  our  ad- 
vances, and  further  injured  our  name  abroad.  With  the 
coming  of  the  Constitution,  what  changes,  if  any,  marked 
the  Cabinet's  attitude  and  what  views  of  American  govern- 
ment were  held  by  leading  members  of  Parliament  like 
Burke,  Fox  and  Sheridan? 

First  it  is  a  little  hard  for  us  to  transplant  our  minds 
and  realize  in  Mr.  Wells'  phrase,  that  the  revolution  to 
England  was  "a  provincial  incident."  We  get  some  com- 
prehension of  it  in  tracing  the  views  of  Pitt's  Cabinet; 
America  really  mattered  very  little.  For  nine  years  she 
was  not  even  accredited  with  a  British  minister.  For 
twelve  years  there  was  no  treaty  of  commerce. 

The  progress  of  the  discussion  about  sending  a  minister 
discloses  in  perhaps  the  most  specific  way  the  English 
Cabinet's  changing  attitude  at  tliis  period.  Immediately 
after  the  treaty  of  peace  England  twice  suggested  sending 
out  a  minister.  But  when  she  saw  the  impotence  of  our 
Congress  the  matter  was  dropped.  When  the  Federal 
Government  was  adopted,  overtures  about  a  minister  were 
forthwith  commenced,  but  another  element  entered  to  de- 
•lay  the  creation  of  a  mission  for  two  years. 

After  Hartley  had  concluded  with  our  Commissioners 

99 


100  THE   ADMINISTRATION,  FOX,  AND   BURKE 

the  provisional  Treaty  of  Peace,  he  entered  into  conversa- 
tions about  commerce.  Fresh  from  a  trip  to  London  in 
the  Spring  of  1783,  and  speaking  for  Fox,  he  "communi- 
cated the  desire  of  the  Court  that  the  two  powers  should 
interchange  ministers  as  soon  as  possible."^  Adams  was 
eager  that  this  be  done,  feeling  that  the  prestige  of  America 
would  be  enhanced,  and  he  urged  Livingston  to  have  action 
taken.  As  the  Summer  passed  and  nothing  happened,  our 
Commissioners  seemed  to  have  asked  Laurens  to  question 
Fox  upon  the  liklihood  of  England  making  the  exchange.^ 
Fox  put  the  query  direct  to  George  III.  His  answer  out- 
lines the  policy  followed  toward  America  for  the  next  few 
years,  and  shows  that  the  primary  reasons  for  it  were  the 
king's  personal  pique  and  our  disordered  government : 

"As  to  the  question  whether  I  wish  to  receive  a  minister 
from  America,  I  certainly  can  never  express  its  being 
agreeable  to  me;  indeed  I  should  think  it  wisest  to  have 
only  agents  who  can  settle  any  matter  of  commerce;  but 
so  far  I  can  not  help  adding  that  I  shall  ever  have  a  bad 
opinion  of  any  Englishman  who  would  accept  of  being  an 
accredited  minister  for  that  revolted  state,  and  which  cer- 
tainly for  years  can  not  establish  a  stable  government.."^ 

Fox  did  not  communicate  the  first  reason  for  not  ex- 
changing a  minister ;  but  Dorset,  in  his  dispatch  about  con- 
gressional weakness,  indicated  the  second  reason  clearly 
enough  at  the  same  time  that  he  further  discussed  the 
problem  of  a  minister,  urging  that  the  United  States  take 
the  initial  step. 

When  the  appointment  of  Adams  followed  he  was 
charged  with  saying  to  Lord  Carmarthen  that  Congress 
expected  reciprocation.  Carmarthen  answered  "that  a 
minister  plenipotentiary  would  certainly  be  sent,"*  and 
said  there  was  some  difficulty  in  securing  a  proper  person. 

lAdams  to  Livingston,  24  May,  1783,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783-89),  VITI,  60. 
^Memorials  a/rvd  Corresp.  of  Charles  James  Fox,  1857,  II,  140. 
SFox,  Memorials,  II,  140. 
4Adams  to  Jay,  16  June,  1786,  Dip.  Corresp.  (1783-89),  V,  132. 


THE    ADMINISTRATION,  FOX,  AND   BURKE  101 

This  was  in  June,  1786.  Meanwhile  Carmarthen  awaited 
developments  from  his  Memorial  of  the  preceding  February 
about  treaty  violations.  Congress  could  not  enforce  the 
demands  of  the  Memorial  upon  the  states  and  coincidentally 
Carmarthen  dropped  the  subject  of  the  minister.  Adams, 
at  the  expiration  of  his  appointment,  said  he  thought  the 
post  should  be  left  vacant  and  not  filled  until  England 
made  advances. 

Yet  it  came  about  that  Gouverneur  Morris,  with  a  letter 
under  Washington's  own  hand,  was  obliged  to  request  a 
minister  and  permitted  to  give  assurances  that  we  would 
send  one  in  return.  Unable  to  invoke  the  uselessness  of 
sending  an  envoy  to  a  weak  Congress,  Carmarthen  now 
repeated  the  old  excuse  about  the  trouble  of  securing  a  fit 
person  and  added  the  new  excuse  that  there  was  danger 
of  trouble  with  France,  and  that  Great  Britain  wished  to 
see  how  America  stood.  Besides,  there  was  friction  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  about  the  Treaty. 
Another  year  passed  until,  in  the  Fall  of  1791,  George 
Hammond  and  Thomas  Pinckney  were  exchanged.  Before 
the  constitution  it  was  the  inefficiency  of  our  government 
which  played  a  large  role  in  the  Cabinet's  attitude.  After 
the  constitution  it  was  the  threatening  affairs  on  the  Con- 
tinent.^ 

The  key  to  the  Ministry's  position  lies  in  our  relations 
with  France.  In  1792  Pinckney  found  that  the  Court  con- 
sidered Americans  identical  in  principle  with  the  French.* 
Hammond's  dispatches  enforced  this  belief.  Just  so  long 
as  there  was  doubt  about  our  preference  between  England 
and  France,  so  long  the  ministry  remained  indifferent.  Our 
improved  government  was  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Pitt  took  the  safe  middle  ground  of  holding  that  our  Con- 
stitution was  good  for  America  but  not  suited  to  England. 
In  a  debate  on  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts  he  said  that 
he  wished  the  American  constitution  afforded  equal  secur- 

1  Sparks,  Morris,  II,  1-57. 

2C.  C.  Pinckney,  Life  of  General  Thomas  Pinckney  (1895),  103. 


t(KS  THE   ADMINISTRATION,  FOX,  AND    BURKE 

ity  for  liberty  and  happiness  with  that  of  Great  Britain, 
and  said  that  the  argument  for  abolishing  test  laws  because 
there  w  ere  none  in  America  was  inapplicable ;  "the  Ameri- 
can constitution  resembles  ours  in  neither  church  nor 
state."' 

When  we  began  to  drift  away  from  France,  the  wind 
instantly  changed.  In  place  of  indifference  the  Cabinet's 
tone  became  one  of  warmth,  and  finally  of  ecstatic  praise. 
With  Jay's  mission,  which  sharply  annoyed  France,  the 
change  begins.  At  its  conclusion  Jay  was  feted  by  mer- 
chants and  Ministry;  glowing  pro- American  sentiments 
were  expressed.  The  three  cheers  for  the  President  of  the 
United  States  were  prolonged  to  six.^ 

In  1797  King  wrote  Hamilton  from  London  that  our 
government  and  situation  was  commended  everywhere  and 
that  "no  American  who  has  not  been  in  England  can  have 
a  just  idea  of  the  admiration  expressed  among  all  parties 
of  General  Washington.  .  .  .  The  King  is  without  doubt  a 
very  popular  character  among  the  people  of  the  nation; 
it  would  be  saying  very  much  to  affiirm  that  next  to  him 
General  Washington  is  the  most  popular  character  among 
them,  yet  I  verily  believe  this  to  be  the  fact."^ 

In  1798,  after  it  was  seen  that  an  election  of  a  new 
President  had  gone  off  quietly  and  that  he  had  held  office 
without  insurrection,  and  especially  after  Adams  had  taken 
stringent  steps  with  France,  the  Cabinet's  opinion  of 
America,  as  well  as  that  of  the  public,  if  the  newspapers 
are  any  criterion,  was  at  its  height.  Lord  Grenville  told 
King  that  "the  people  of  Great  Britain  must  look  to  Amer- 
ica instead  of  to  Europe  and  from  its  increase  and  pros- 
perity they  hoped  and  expected  to  find  what  they  should 
lose  in  Europe."* 

It  is  in  connection  with  affairs  in  France  that  we  meet 
most  of  the  comment  expressed  by  Sheridan,  Burke,  and 

iHansard,  XXVIII,  413. 
2Jay,  Papers  and  Corresp.,  IV,  164. 
SRufiis  King,  Life  and  Corresp.,  II,  141. 
4King,  Ibid,  II,  372. 


THE    ADMINISTRATION,  FOX,  AND    BURKE  103 

Fox.  Back  in  1794,  denouncing  the  administration  for  a 
war  which  he  held  might  have  been  averted — the  United 
States  had  remained  neutral — Sheridan  said : 

"Oh,  turn  your  eyes  to  America;  view  her  situation, 
her  happiness,  her  content!  Observe  her  trades  and  her 
manufactures,  adding  daily  to  her  general  credit,  to  her 
private  engagements,  and  her  public  resources — her  name 
and  government  rising  above  the  nations  of  Europe."^ 

In  opposition,  like  his  colleague  Sheridan,  it  was  Fox's 
business,  also,  to  laud  American  example.  Kepudiating 
the  idea  that  license  must  follow  liberty  as  in  France,  he 
asked  if  there  were  anarchy  in  America  "whose  own 
glorious  Constitution  was  founded  on  the  rights  of  man. 
No  such  thing. "^  During  a  speech  on  the  Address  he  re- 
ferred to  the  people  "who  enjoyed  at  least  the  first  con- 
stitution in  the  world — for  them,  most  certainly  the  best 
form  of  government  on  earth,  for  so  he  would  venture  to 
say  was  the  government  of  America.'" 

Like  Grattan,  he  called  upon  America  as  proof  that  per- 
mitting all  religions  to  participate  freely  in  civil  affairs 
was  no  source  of  dissension.^  Like  the  conservatives,  he 
held  that  America  had  built  on  England's  model:  "They 
had  preserved  as  much  as  they  possibly  could  of  the  old 
form  .  .  .  and  made  this  what  was  best  for  themselves, 
consisting  of  monarchy,  aristocracy  and  democracy 
blended."' 

It  was  on  the  same  basis  that  Edmund  Burke  endorsed 
the  American  Constitution,  though  with  great  conserv- 
atism. When  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  agreed 
to,  he  referred  to  them,  if  the  account  in  the  Annual 
Register  be  his,  as  "a  remarkable  Treaty."®  When  the 
Constitution  was  adopted  his  mind  was  occupied  with 
Warren  Hastings  and  then  with  the  outbreak  in  France. 

iHansard,  XXX,  1219. 

mansard,  XXIX,  81 ;  Ditto,  Ha/nsard,  XXIX,  110. 

ZHansard,  XXIX,  412. 

iHansard,  XXVIII,  396. 

^Hansard,  XXIX,  412.  «1777,  23. 


104  THE    ADMINISTRATION,  FOX,  AND    BURKE 

To  those  who  chided  him  on  inconsistency  in  his  treatment 
of  the  insurrection  in  America  and  the  rebellion  in  France 
he  replied  that  "he  was  favorable  to  the  American  because 
he  supposed  they  were  fighting  not  to  conquer  absolute 
speculative  liberty,  but  to  keep  what  they  had  under  the 
English  Constitution."^ 

This  is  also  the  explanation  of  his  tolerance  of  the 
American  Constitution  despite  his  intolerance  of  the 
French.  In  the  Reftections,  where  the  name  America  is  not 
mentioned,  he  gave  as  his  prescription  for  a  statesman,  "a 
disposition  to  preserve  and  an  ability  to  improve,  taken 
together  would  be  my  standard  !"^  And  he  intimates  what 
he  thought  France  should  have  done  in  this  statement, 
"If  .  .  .  you  had  kept  the  ancient  principles  and  models 
of  the  old  common  law  of  Europe  meliorated  and  adapted 
.  .  .  you  would  have  given  an  example  of  wisdom  to  the 
world.  "^ 

Precisely  because  America  had  followed  precedent,  and 
because  that  precedent  was  the  British  Constitution,  Burke 
refrained  from  denouncing  the  framework,  though  he  had 
little  use  for  republics  and  democracies*.  His  longest 
reference  to  our  Constitution  occurs  in  the  debate  on  the 
Quebec  Bill,  May  11,  1791.^  Like  the  conservative  school, 
he  distinguished  the  elements  which  permitted  it  to  work 
in  the  United  States  and  which  obviated  the  logic  of  the 
conclusion  that  the  same  Constituttion  would  work  every- 
where else: 

"The  people  of  America  had,  he  believed,  formed  a  Con- 
stitution as  well  adapted  to  their  circumstances  as  they 
could.  But,  compared  with  the  French  they  had  a  certain 
quantity  of  phlegm,  of  old  English  good  nature,  that  fitted 
them  better  for  a  Republican  government.  They  had  also 
a  republican  education;  their  former  internal  government 

iHansard,  XXIX,  395. 

^Works,  1884,  III,  383. 

sibid,  279. 

*A  Vindication  of  Natural  Society. 

5Hansard,  XXIX,  359,  seq. 


THE   ADMINISTRATION,  FOX,  AND    BURKE  105 

was  republican,  and  the  principal  vices  of  it  were  re- 
strained by  the  beneficence  of  an  over-ruling  monarchy  in 
this  country.  The  formation  of  their  Constitution  was 
preceded  by  a  long  war,  in  the  course  of  which  by  military 
discipline,  they  had  learned  order  and  submission  to  com- 
mand, and  a  regard  for  great  men.  They  had  learned  what 
— if  it  was  possible  in  so  enlightened  an  age  as  the  present 
to  allude  to  antiquity — a  King  of  Sparta  had  said  was  the 
great  wisdom  to  be  learned  in  his  country,  to  command 
and  obey.  They  were  trained  to  government  by  war,  not 
by  plots,  murders  and  assassinations.  In  the  next  place 
they  had  not  the  materials  of  monarchy  or  aristocracy 
among  them.  They  did  not,  however,  set  up  the  absurdity 
that  a  nation  should  govern  the  nation ;  that  Prince  Pretty- 
man  should  govern  Prince  Prettyman;  but  formed  their 
governments  as  nearly  as  they  could,  according  to  the 
model  of  the  British  Constitution.  Yet  he  did  not  say, 
"Give  this  Constitution  to  a  British  colony,"  because  if 
the  bare  imitation  of  the  British  Constitution  were 
so  good,  why  not  give  them  the  thing  itself?  as  he  who 
professed  to  sing  like  a  nightingale,  was  told  by  the  i)erson 
to  whom  he  offered  his  services  that  he  could  hear  the 
nightingale  herself." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Criticism  of  Constitutional  Organization. 

"With  what  curious  diffidence  must  the  members  of  the 
Convention  revolved  in  their  minds  the  difficulties — so 
vast  a  country  and  for  a  state  not  yet  formed,"  wrote 
William  Winterbotham,  the  liberal  clergyman  incarcer- 
ated at  Newgate  by  Government  for  some  remarks  from 
the  pulpit  which  we  should  now  consider  colorless  indeed. 
He  whiled  away  his  confinement  by  compiling  from  sec- 
ond hand  sources  "An  Historical,  Geographical,  Com- 
mercial and  Philosophical  View  of  the  American  United 
States."^  His  account  of  the  changes  from  the  Articles  to 
the  Constitution  is  the  most  complete  from  an  English 
hand  in  this  period,  and  his  criticism  of  the  organization 
of  the  constitutional  powers  the  most  full.  What,  in  gen- 
eral, did  political  writers  think  of  the  structure  of  our 
government,  its  source,  nature,  and  powers? 

First  of  all,  the  "Fathers"  were  not  accredited  with 
being  the  creators  of  the  scheme;  it  was  the  consequence 
of  imitation  and  precedent.  "Not  one  of  them  discovered 
the  genius  of  a  great  statesman.  .  .  .  They  had  patiepce : 
Information  flowed  in  from  all  parts  of  the  world.  .  .  . 
The  plan  was  adopted,  not  invented  by  those  who  will 
have  the  historical  fame  of  it,"^  was  the  verdict  of  a  most 
amiable  critic.  As  we  have  seen  asserted,  Great  Britain 
was  believed  to  be  the  chief  model. 

But  the  source  of  American  government  was  the  people. 
Political  writers  of  all  hues  hailed  as  a  novelty  the  spec- 

11795,  4  Vols. 

^Lessons  to  a  Young  Prince,  D.  Williams,  1795,  67. 

107 


108  CRITICISM    OF   CONSTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION 

tacle,  "never  before  witnessed  in  the  history  of  the  world,"^ 
of  a  people  through  delegates  deliberately  constructing  a 
form  of  government.^  In  the  classical  political  economy 
all  government  was  said  to  be  the  result  of  force,  fraud, 
or  accident.^  "The  American  is  the  only  exception,  which 
is  the  act  of  a  whole  people  by  their  representatives  equally 
and  universally  chosen."*  "It  exhibits  a  model  of  a  well 
organized  community  of  a  government  of  all  by  all,"  wrote 
Lord  Sempill,^  as  he  endorsed  the  conclusion  of  Chalmers, 
reached  years  since,  that  American  government  was 
founded  on  compact.  To  its  popular  origin  Priestley, 
driven  to  America  by  conservative  persecution  at  home, 
attributed  the  object  of  the  Constitution;  "which  is  the 
securing  of  each  individual  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  natural 
rights."^ 

The  final  proof  of  popular  origin  and  control  was  found 
in  the  provision  for  amendment.  Winterbotham  called  it 
a  panacea  of  politics — "an  improvement  in  the  source  and 
practice  of  government  reserved  to  the  United  States."^  It 
was  a  saving  outlet  for  civil  war.'  "Knowing  that  man  is 
yet  in  his  cradle  as  to  political  institutions  and  that  every 
day  will  produce  an  expansion  of  the  mind,  the  Americans 
have  happily  left  their  government  open  to  innovation  by 
the  people  themselves,"  exclaimed  Yorke.^  With  Cart- 
wright,  he  considered  the  amending  clause  one  of  the  prime 
excellencies  of  the  Constitution.' 

Though  the  ultimate  source  was  popular,  English  critics 
noted  with  approval  the  system  of  check  and  balance 
which  tended  to  hold  democracy  in  restraint  as  well  as 
the  three  governmental  branches  from  tyranny;  and  they 
recognized  the  odd  division  of  sovereignty  between  the 

iWinterbotham,   View,  I,  327. 

2J.  Payne,  An  Epitome  of  History,  1795,  II,  533. 

^Thoughts  on  the  Origin  .  .  .  of  Political  Constitutions,  1795. 

4A  Short  Sketch  of  the  Revolution,  by  Laelius,  1793. 

^Short  Address  to  the  Public,  1793.      ^Lectures  on  History,  1826,  526. 

1A  Reply  to  Mr.  Burke,  T.  Cooper,  1792. 

»See  preface,  Debrett's  edition  of  the  Constitution,  1795. 


CRITICISM    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION  109 

states  and  nation.  The  nature  of  our  government  was 
variously  defined  as  "mixed,"^  "aristocratical-demoerat- 
ieal,"^  or  downright  "democracy."^  Paley,  before  the  Con- 
stitution was  adopted,  hit  the  mark  closer  with  "federal 
republic,"  which  he  conceded  to  be  a  likely  device  for  per- 
mitting democracy  to  flourish  over  a  large  territory.^ 

The  checks  and  balances  detected  by  our  English  friends 
were  the  lauded  separation  of  executive,  legislative  and 
judicial,  "an  ideal  equipose,"*  the  bicameral  legislature, 
each  House  guarding  against  the  other,  and  the  President's 
veto  holding  both  down  from  above,  while  popular  elec- 
tion restricted  them  from  below.  Eabid  democracy  was 
to  be  curbed  by  the  sedate  Senate,  the  President  by  fre- 
quent elections,  the  judges  by  removal  and  stopping  of 
pay.  In  fact  the  President,  Congress,  and  the  electorate 
were  continually  regarded  as  forming  three  estates,  bal- 
ancing one  another  and  similar  to  those  of  Great  Britain.^ 
Malkin  objected  to  the  accuracy  of  this  classification: 
"There  undoubtedly  are  three  estates  in  England  and 
three  estates  in  America,  but  the  parallel  will  go  no 
further.  It  is  worthy  to  be  classed  with  that  of  Shakes- 
pere's  Welshman,  "There  is  a  river  in  Macedon,  there  is 
also  a  river  at  Monmouth,  and  there  are  salmon  in  both."® 

The  additional  check  of  the  states  on  the  nation  and 
vice  versa,  was  appreciated  as  a  delicate  adjustment.  Its 
arrangement  was  a  third  prime  diflftculty  in  the  Conven- 
tion, according  to  Winterbotham.  The  other  two  were 
selecting  a  form  adapted  to  a  large  country,  and  working 
without  a  precedent.''  The  doctrine  of  divided  sovereignty 
was  laid  down  in  this  way:  "The  states  are  at  present 
confederated  with  certain  portions  of  sovereignty  in  the 
distinct  legislatures  of  each,  with  specific  portions  in  Con- 

iPubUstical  Survey  of  all  the  Different  Forms  of  Government,  T.  B. 
Clarke,  1791. 

2Malkin,  Essays,  85. 

^Principals  of  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  1785,  85. 

4Malkin,  Ihid,  130. 

^Considerations  on  the  State  of  the  House  of  Commons,  1794,  57,  seq. 

«Malkin,  Ibid,  132.  Wiew,  I,  228, 


110  CRITICISM    OF   CONSfTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION 

gress — no  more  of  the  states  sovereignty  was  resigned 
than  was  necessary  for  forming  a  union. ^  Winterbotham 
remarks  that  the  most  important  element  of  sovereignty 
had  been  surrendered  when  Congress  was  allowed  to  act 
directly  on  the  individual,  the  distinguishing  difference 
he  said,  between  the  Articles  and  the  Constitution,  and 
one  which  made  the  Federal  Government  the  stronger  of 
the  two.  Despite  this  lever,  Cobbett  believed  that  "the 
great  defect  of  the  Constitution  was  the  leaving  too  much 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  governments  of  the  different 
states."^ 

"The  first  magistrate  who  loves  all  the  states  and  is  be- 
loved by  them  all  .  .  .  looks  out  of  his  window,  surveys 
his  plantation,  and  is  supported  principally  by  his  own 
estates,"  wrote  G.  Dyer,  praising  American  frugality.^  A 
less  democratic  picture  of  the  President  was  drawn  by  one 
of  Paine's  opponents  who  described  him  as  a  King — 
"Cromwell  exercised  more  power  by  the  name  of  Protector, 
than  Charles  had  to  lose  as  King.  Names  do  not  much 
signify."*  Indeed  English  liberal  opinion  felt  that  the 
President  had  rather  too  much  power  for  a  republican 
government.  Godwin  refers  to  the  "iniquity  of  so  much 
power  in  one  man."^  Priestley,*  like  Callender,^  regretted 
his  participation  in  treaty  making  and  objected  to  re- 
election.® Winterbotham  echoed  the  same  criticism,  com- 
plaining also  that  the  pardoning  power  was  too  extreme 
and  asserting  that  there  should  be  an  executive  council  to 
guard  against  presidential  usurpation.  The  veto  was  the 
sharpest  thorn.  Hammond  notified  the  government  of 
Washington's  first  employment  of  the  prerogative.^  It 
created  a  stir  in  radical  circles :  "That  one  man  should  con- 

lOldys,  Life  of  Thomas  Pain  (sic),  1792,  143. 

zWorks,  1801,  I,  29, 

SThe  Complaint  of  the  Poor  People  of  Englam^  (1795),  114. 

^Principles  of  Order  under  the  British  Constitution,  1792,  8. 

^Enquiry  Concerning  Political  Justice,  1798,  II,  Bk.  I. 

^Letters  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Northumberland,  1799,  Letter  X. 

"^American  Annual  Register,  1796,  107. 

85  April,  1792,  F.  O.  Eecs.,  XIV. 


CRITICISM    OF   CONSTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION  111 

tradict  a  nation.  ...  Is  too  much."^  Priestley,  while 
warmly  applauding  the  electoral  college,  added  his  dis- 
sent to  the  veto  privilege,^ 

Two  suggested  reformations  in  selecting  the  president 
should  be  mentioned :  Fearful  of  factional  happenings  at 
Washington's  death,  William  Gordon,  the  historian,  wrote 
to  Washington  and  suggested  that  the  Presidency  go  to 
each  state  in  rotation,  beginning  with  the  largest  and 
passing  to  the  smallest  in  population.^  A  writer  in  the 
Monthly  Review*  suggested  a  Directory,  with  Directors 
from  different  sections  of  the  country  "to  impede  the 
facility  of  disruption  in  case  the  West  and  the  other  states 
should  vote  for  distant  Presidents." 

The  Vice-President  escaped  English  eyes,  except  for 
some  denunciation  by  Winterbotham  and  John  Payne 
because  his  chairmanship  of  the  Senate  violated  the  prin- 
ciple of  separation. 

The  Senate  was  praised  by  conservatives  on  account  of 
its  sobering  limitation  on  popular  action  and  on  account 
of  its  protection  for  the  small  states.^  It  was  assailed  by 
radicals  on  the  ground  of  over  much  prerogative.  "America 
wisely  created  a  Senate  and  its  good  effects  have  been 
fully  experienced,"  wrote  an  Irish  author.^  In  his  "Travels 
in  France"  Young  thus  indicates  his  approval:  "In  con- 
stituting the  legislatures,  the  states  all  have  two  houses, 
except  Pennsylvania,  and  Congress  itself  meets  in  the 
same  form.  Thus  a  ready  explanation  is  found  of  that 
order  and  regularity  and  security  of  property  which 
strikes  every  eye  in  America,  a  contrast  to  the  spectacle 
which  France  exhibits."^ 

But  Winterbotham  caviled  about  its  power.  Because 
of  its  long  duration,  privilege  of  altering  money  bills,  re- 

^Political  Review,  18  July,  1792. 

^Lectures  oru  History,  1826,  573. 

3Spark's  Corresp.  Amer.  Rev.,  IV,  436. 

4February  1797. 

5J.  Payne,  Op.  Cit.,  II,  530. 

^Thoughts  on  British  Constitution,  Belfast,  1794. 

7Bohn,  1900,  338. 


112  CRITICISM    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION 

moteness  from  the  people,  it  will  "destroy  any  and  every 
balance  of  the  government."  He  objected  to  its  participa- 
tion in  appointment,  which  he  would  reserve  to  an  execu- 
tive council.  To  ameliorate  the  dissatisfaction  over  equal 
representation  of  large  and  small  states,  Priestley  ad- 
vocated the  sending  of  three  senators  from  each  common- 
wealth instead  of  two,  though  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to 
ascertain  what  difference  would  be  made.^ 

"The  inequality  between  Senate  and  House  never  will 
be  endured.  As  larger  states  grow  larger,"  thought 
Callender,  "an  alteration  or  dislocation  of  the  Senate  will 
certainly  follow."^  Winterbotham,  rabid  on  popular  rep- 
resentation, considered  the  House  of  Representatives  too 
small,  "a  shadow  only  of  the  representation."  Priestley, 
who  wanted  to  change  everything  just  a  little,  said  elec- 
tions should  be  triennial  instead  of  biennial.  Winterbotham 
detected  the  clause  through  which  governmental  expansion 
would  flow.  "Under  the  general  clause  at  the  end  of  the 
enumerated  powers  Congress  may  get  everything  under 
control." 

One  English  traveller  during  this  period  visited  the 
House  and  has  left  his  impressions.  Henry  Wansey  in 
"An  Excursion  to  the  United  States  of  North  America  in 
1794"  makes  more  references  to  political  conditions  than 
any  other  of  the  seven  British  tourists^  who  published  their 
travels.  He  commends  the  oratory  of  the  House  and  says 
that  "a  serious  attention  to  business  marked  the  counte- 
nances of  the  representatives,  who  were  all  very  decently 
dressed."  "I  was  struck  with  the  convenient  arrangement 
of  the  seats  for  the  members ;  the  size  of  the  chamber  was 
about  one  hundred  feet  by  sixty ;  the  seats,  in  three  rows, 
formed  semi-circles  behind  each  other  facing  the  speaker, 
who  was  in  a  kind  of  a  pulpit  near  the  center  of  the  radii, 
and  the  clerks  below  him ;  every  member  was  accomodated 

Wp.  at.,  578. 

2Amer.  Annual  Reg.,  1796,  98. 

sWansey,  T.  Anburey,  William  Priest,  T.  Cooper,  Isaac  Weld,  J.  F.  D. 
Smythe,  E.  Parkinson. 


CRITICISM    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION  113 

for  writing,  by  there  being  likewise  a  circular  writing  desk 
to  each  of  the  circular  seats ;  over  the  entrance  was  a  large 
gallery  into  which  were  admitted  every  citizen,  without 
distinction,  who  chose  to  attend?"^ 

In  discussing  our  courts,  the  English  critics  made  no 
specific  statement  that  they  enjoyed  the  power  to  invalid- 
ate laws  of  the  nation  and  of  the  states  running  counter  to 
the  Federal  Constitution.  But  that  such  a  power  reposed 
in  the  judicial  arm  was  inferred  by  the  rejoicing  because 
under  the  new  constitution  a  treaty  was  federal  law  and 
that  henceforth  there  need  be  no  worry  about  state  in- 
fringement. The  English  diplomatic  officers  apprised  the 
Government  of  this  circumstance  and  noted  significantly 
that  "the  present  Chief  Justice  (Mr.  John  Jay)  was  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  who  reported  the  infraction  of 
the  treaty  of  peace."^  On  the  other  hand  the  Public  Ad- 
vertiser printed  the  following  categorial  "Extract  from 
New  York:"  "The  judicial  power  is  established  for  the 
benefit  of  foreigners  and  will  be  a  check  on  any  encroach- 
ment by  the  state  or  the  United  States  on  the  Constitution. 
They  have  the  power  of  declaring  void  any  law  infringing 
it.  They  will  be  perfectly  independent  and  can  only  be 
removed  by  impeachment."^ 

The  case  of  Chisholm  against  Georgia  was  noticed  with 
interest,  reported  in  the  Annual  Register^  and  the  Monthly 
Review/  and  printed  by  Debrett.  Decentralizing  Winter- 
botham  looked  on  it  as  an  effort  to  absorb  jurisdiction  of 
the  state  courts.  In  fact  all  English  critics  of  the  judicial 
arm  said  that  it  was  grasping  power,  and  its  system  of 
appeals  made  law  tedious,  intricate,  and  expensive.  Cob- 
bett,  blinded  however  by  alien  and  sedition  laws,  denounced 
the  courts  bitterly. 

Yet  for  all  the  incidental  fault  finding  of  individuals,  by 

11798,  98-99. 

227  May,  1790,  C.  O.  Papers,  class  42,  Can.,  LXVII. 

88  October,  1789. 

41793,  23. 

BMay,  1793. 


114  CRITICISM    OF    CONSTITUTIONAL    ORGANIZATION 

and  large,  English  opinion  thought  highly  of  our  constitu- 
tional organization.  Shelburne^  and  Wilberforce^  said  the 
model  should  be  adopted  by  France.  Lord  Grenville  hoped 
the  South  American  countries  would  follow  the  system.* 
In  the  writings  of  the  radicals  we  have  seen  something  of 
the  veneration  of  our  constitution  in  England  125  years 
ago  that  existed  in  America  a  century  later.  A.  H.  Rowan, 
the  Irish  exile,  noticed  the  incipience  of  the  American  halo 
in  1796 : 

"I  see  the  same  attachment  to  the  present  constitution 
and  reverence  for  it  with  abuse  of  its  opponents,  or  rather 
of  the  reformists,  as  exists  in  our  own  country  in  favor  of 
the  British  Constitution,  indeed  I  think  it  too  young  to 
brag  so  much  of  it."* 

But  at  this  era  praise  of  the  American  government  and 
experiment  came  not  only  from  British  Radical  and  Irish 
Patriot.  It  came  from  the  aristocrats  and  scions  of  the 
royal  house  itself.  This  passage,  so  different  from  the 
words  of  fifteen  years  before,  demonstrates  the  altered 
English  opinion  of  the  American  enterprise.  It  was  written 
by  William  Frederick,  Duke  of  Gloucester  to  William 
Windham  in  the  Fall  of  1798 : 

"What  a  power !  What  immense  inexhaustible  resources ; 
What  a  length  of  coast  and  what  fine  harbors!  Should 
she  ever  become  a  maritime  power,  all  the  West  Indies  will 
be  here  and  I  should  not  be  surprised  to  see  South  America 
under  her  dominion."^ 

iHcmsard,  XXXI,  683. 

^Hansard,  XXII,  11. 

3/vi/e  amid  Corresp.  of  Rufus  Kim,g,  II,  572. 

^A-utoMopraptvy,  1840,  120. 

^Wmdham  Papers,  1913,  II,  79. 


VITA. 

The  writer  was  born  at  Boston,  Mass.,  November  27, 
1889.  He  received  the  degrees  of  A.B.  in  1910,  M.A.  in 
1912,  Litt.B.  in  1913,  all  from  Columbia.  He  took  courses 
in  the  Law  School  1910-12  and  in  the  Faculty  of  Political 
Science  from  1910-13  and  1914-15  under  the  following 
Professors:  Frank  J.  Goodnow,  John  Bassett  JNIoore. 
Charles  A.  Beard,  Howard  Lee  McBain,  and  Edward  M. 
Salt.  He  was  admitted  to  the  New  York  Bar  in  1913.  He 
served  on  the  editorial  staff  of  the  l^ew  York  World,  1913- 
14,  as  Assistant  in  Politics,  Columbia  University,  1914-15. 


115 


THIS  BOOK  TS«  P"' 


HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 

to  Circulation  uesK. 
Renewals  and  recharges «  J. -de  4  d„spn.r 


LD21 — A-40rn-5,'74 
(RSIOIL) 


General  Libra^ 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


